Good morning, kids. On a positive note, Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the Trump documents case has indefinitely suspended the proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial is indefinitely postponed because of legal issues and deadlines involving the use of classified evidence at trial. The former president had been scheduled to go on trial in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal criminal case against him in two weeks on May 20. . .
. . . “The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and [Classified Information Procedures Act] issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury,” Cannon wrote.
The move threatens to derail the case as it increases the likelihood that it does not go to trial until after the presidential election in November. If Trump were to win, it is widely expected that his Department of Justice will dismiss the case.
As we now know, to no one's surprise, is that the FBI 3AM raid on Mar-a-Lago featured photos released to the Junta propaganda house organs showing "Classified" documents strewn all about Trump's living room – except that the photos were completely staged by the FBI, including prop folders they created with the words "TOP SECRET" rubber stamped a la "Mission: Impossible" all over them. Ham-fisted and amateurish to be sure, yet in terms of satisfying a Trump-deranged audience, it was the moral equivalent of giving a stack slightly used Beaver Hunt> to a horny 13-year-old and telling him to go have a good time.
From the beginning, the whole thing was specious since as president, Trump had the authority to declassify whatever documents he chose and to have them in his possession. The grand total, to the best of my recollection were several boxes which were in his possession at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. In fact, many of the documents may very well have been shipped to him without his knowledge, either of their being in his possession or the nature of their contents. Total Deep State set up. Just like J-6. This is unlike Joey Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants who took an Ark of the Covenant sized warehouse full of them illegally with malice aforethought during his tenure as Obama's VP (likely even years before as a senator) and kept them in unlocked garages and university offices for the purpose of selling whatever they contained to the highest bidder. But Biden remains uncharged as the spin-meisters do their dervish routine to assure us it's a nothing burger and/or totally kosher. Thank you Robert Hur. As for Aileen Cannon, the usual gang of deviants, gibbering hacks and fools are having shit-fits. The facts be damned. She's a Trump appointee and therefore this is a travesty of justice. It'd be laughable were it not for the hypocrisy of everyone from Jack Smith, to Bragg, to Willis, to Merchan to Engoron/Gorgon/Enron/Erdogon and virtually the entire criminal justice scam of a system being used to crush Donald Trump and everyone who supports him. There is still another Jack Smith show trial regarding J-6 along with Fani Willis' peep show of "2020 election interference," the Alvin Bragg 34 counts of the same non-crime of not inflating the value of his properties all masquerading as equal justice under the law. Let me pause and apologize in advance for perhaps confusing some of the players and what each charge may or may not be that they are involved with. It's a blizzard of utter kangaroo court, banana republic bullshit that it's all too easy to lose track of who's doing what to Trump and all of us with what at what time and in what court. The Hyman Roth, or in this case the broken hymen of wroth cherry on top of it all is the truly pornographic display of this Stormy Daniels travesty (the E. Jean Carrol rape fantasist fake "libel" suit notwithstanding). Legal eagle Jonathan Turley describes it perfectly:The value of the testimony was entirely sensational and gratuitous, yet Merchan was fine with humiliating Trump. Daniels’ testimony was a dumpster fire in the courtroom.
The most maddening moment for the defense came at the lunch break when Merchan stated, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” He then denied a motion for a mistrial basis on the testimony and blamed the defense for not objecting more.
That, of course, ignores the standing objection of the defense to Daniels even appearing, and specific objections to the broad scope allowed by the court. This is precisely what the defense said would happen when the prosecutors only agreed to avoid “genitalia.”
. . . There was no reason for Daniels to appear at all in the trial. Even if he was adamant in allowing her, Merchan could have imposed a much more limited scope for her testimony. He could also have enforced the limits that he did place on the testimony when it was being ignored by both the prosecutors and the witness.
Merchan said that he is considering a limiting instruction for the jury to ignore aspects of the testimony. But that is little comfort for the defendant. The court was told that this would happen, it happened, and now the court wants to ask the jury to pretend that it did not happen. Merchan knows that there is no way for the jury to unhear the testimony. More importantly, the prosecution knew that from the outset. . .
. . . It is not the witness, but the case that seems increasingly obscene. You have a judge who should have recused himself given his daughter’s major role as a Democratic activist and fundraiser. You have a gag order that is allowing a New York Supreme Court justice to regulate what the leading candidate for the presidency may say in an election on the weaponization of the legal system. You have a lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, who not only left the Biden Justice Department to revive this case, but once worked for the Democratic National Committee.
You have a case based on two dead misdemeanors shocked back into life by a still mysterious theory of an undefined crime. In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. Trump.
Even more of a joke than the media whore propagandists hyperventilating of Aileen Cannon is the fact that they are fearful Sloppy Daniels' testimony might actually cause Bragg to lose the case. As if! A rigged judge, prosecutor and a jury pool in a city and state that went something like well over 80% for Biden in 2020 (election shenanigans notwithstanding). Even with all that going for them, there is no way that that jury isn't fixed and the verdict already in. And should there actually be at least one juror who might actually go rogue, they'll be doxxed and find their homes and their family members on fire by the time they are released. Of course, with the nation, the economy, the border, out of control crime, exploding Jew-hate on and off campus and the world going up in flames already, every time the name Trump is even mentioned in the media now serves as a sort of in-kind donation to his campaign. And if Merchan actually locks him up? Wow. It is a sad state of affairs that we are forced to see things as they are, and not as we wish them to be. But it is what it is. With everything so abjectly corrupt, and the will to power that has strangled even the tiniest sliver of an iota of morality and ethics that might have still existed of those in power to stifle their own political desires in favor of fairness, decency and the preservation of even the slimmest veneer of the civil society that yet exists, what chance do "the better angels of our nature" have in pulling us back from the brink?Has the Supreme Court noticed that we’ve crossed a legal Rubicon? The Constitution — that thing the Court is supposed to defend — is becoming less relevant by the day because the left has decided that our mutual pact of self-governance doesn’t apply to leftists. They have weaponized our government against us — using it to surveil, silence, harass, and steal from us. Our own government is even arguing that the Constitution should not be a constraint on its operations — which is precisely what its purpose is.
Are the Supreme Court Justices beginning to realize that we are in crisis? Two recent cases indicate that they are awakening to that reality.
In Fischer v. United States, the court is considering the validity of using a financial statute to charge January 6 trespassers with obstruction of an official proceeding. During questioning, Justice Gorsuch asked, “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” He was referring to Democrat Jamaal Bowman, who pulled a fire alarm to prevent a congressional vote yet was not charged with “obstructing an official proceeding.” That was Gorsuch’s way of asking if something other than party affiliation determines who will face the greater jeopardy of obstruction charges. It was a sarcastic illustration of the decidedly unequal system of justice the DoJ is currently practicing.
In Trump v. United States, the Court is considering whether Donald Trump has immunity for actions taken while he was president. The DoJ argued that the motive for presidential actions should determine whether immunity applies and that the discretion and good motivations of DoJ attorneys should be trusted to make that determination (try not to laugh). Justice Alito questioned the wisdom of that argument, asking if the DoJ should be trusted, “given its history of abusive partisan prosecution.” That is about as close as a Supreme Court justice will ever come to telling a government solicitor general that the latter has squandered his last ounce of credibility.
It appears that the Supreme Court justices are becoming aware that our justice system is now a tangle of broken constitutional promises and inconsistent legal decisions. But do they realize that they helped create this mess?
. . . The Supreme Court needs to make radical course corrections now, because it failed to make minor adjustments when it would have mattered.
The Court’s desire to exercise restraint is an admirable judicial philosophy — in a well functioning republic. When a car is running well, minor maintenance is the only appropriate action. But when the car is on fire, it doesn’t need an oil change. It needs emergency action.
Do the Supremes realize that the leftists have set our republic on fire? The Court needs to stop looking for excuses for restraint and start looking for opportunities to stop the advance of tyranny. This is the time for bold action — or after November there may be nothing left to defend but ashes. They need to consider that as they deliberate on the cases before them.
It's a very well-written and thoughtful essay. Except I would ask the author, even if please God SCOTUS makes the right decisions in these cases, what will it matter in the end? They already slapped down Joey Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants student loan multi billion dollar bribe as unconstitutional and what did he do? Ignore it and issue another one! To paraphrase Democrat hero Joseph Stalin, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"