123
“What does the word “delay” even mean…? Amirite?”, asked Judge Qanon.
Judge Qanon.
fucking jenius.
Need to call a special fact-finding hearing featuring the editors of Merriam-Webster's, Collins, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Let's pencil it in for three weeks from next Monday.
Excuse me, your honor. I think we need to have a hearing on what the definition of fact-finding is. Actually, I think we need three separate hearings. One is to define the word fact, then the word finding, and the last to define fact-finding with regards to the scope of this case. Oh, and that reminds me......we need to define the word scope as well. I mean what kind of scope? A periscope? A telescope? And how do we define definition anyway? I think we need a hearing on that as well...........and what does constitute a hearing, anyway? Has that been defined anywhere? See how complex this case is? You're confused, your clerk quit an hour ago, and even your stenographer confessed to Nixon's disappearance and went to jail rather than suffer through this any more. So how do you expect a jury of my peers to undestand this. And what do we mean by "peers" anyway.......
"Judges Cannon pushes back on notion that delaying things will delay things."
Yah, that's a Trump-appointed judge for you.
Can't delay a trial you intend never to hear tho, right?
/case dismissed!
//s
From the article:
“There is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial,’ on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress,” Cannon wrote.
Yeah, you fucking cunt. You're doing the former while trying to call it the latter and using Trumpian doublespeak and circular logic to justify it.
Trump’s lawyers say they believe the wording used in the search warrant to authorize agents to seize “national defense information” and “Presidential Records” wasn’t specific enough, and Cannon agreed that there were “ambiguities.”
“The Court determines that some of the terms in that document do not carry ‘generally understood meaning[s]’ such that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such material as ‘seizable’ property,” the judge wrote on Thursday.
I don't even know where to begin here. Is she literally entertaining the idea that FBI agents are too stupid to know what national defense information and Presidential records are? What the fuck is that?
I can't even.......seriously.....I just can't. This is a level of stupid that I did not think was achievable by sentient human beings that are allowed to go outside without adult supervision.
Please, PLEASE tell me that this is finally an appealable issue. It HAS to be, right? Right? The 11th circuit or whatever appeals court oversees her will be able to bitchslap her again and hopefully remove her from the case, right? Or is all hope truly lost and we're destined to spend the next several months trying to figure out if the FBI knows what national defense information is until she finds the next excuse to delay the case for another eleventy billion years?
Is she literally entertaining the idea that FBI agents are too stupid to know what national defense information and Presidential records are?
It's all the stuff with SECRET stamped on it. Not that hard. I bet even Cannon could figure it out.
I bet even Cannon could figure it out.
Looks like we need another hearing scheduled in 2026 to figure that out before we proceed.
I hope that if I'm ever charged with a serious federal crime I can have a judge who I appointed to office sit on my case.....
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
123 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
3821 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS