On Friday, District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a new order in the Donald Trump classified documents case adding to the mountain of evidence that she is firmly in the former presidentā€™s pocket. Trump appointed Cannon in 2020 and the Senate confirmed her appointment in the days after he lost the 2020 election. Itā€™s deeply offensive to the rule of law for judges to bend the law to benefit those who put them on the bench. Sadly, Cannon does just that.

Cannonā€™s new ruling rejected special counsel Jack Smithā€™s entirely standard request that she order Trump to state whether he intends to rely on an ā€œadvice of counselā€ defense ahead of the trial, currently scheduled for May 20. Advance notice of the defense helps expedite a trial because defendants asserting it need to provide additional discovery to prosecutorsā€”raising the defense means that defendants must disclose all communications with their attorneys, as the defense waives the attorneyā€“client privilege.

Judge Cannonā€™s brief order asserted that Smithā€™s motion was ā€œnot amenable to proper consideration at this juncture, prior to at least partial resolution of pretrial motionsā€ and further discovery.

Sound innocuous? Itā€™s anything but. Instead, itā€™s part of a pattern weā€™ve already seen of Cannon laying the groundwork for delaying Trumpā€™s trialā€”until itā€™s too late for a jury to be empaneled and the case tried to verdict before the election.

  • Thoth19@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Fortunately the rules allow for celebrating violence and advocating for nonviolent deaths. If youā€™re going to be pedantic about the exact meaning of your rules to stifle opposition, write better rules.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Rule 6 is NOT ambiguous:

      ā€œNo 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 warningā€

      Telling people to practice shooting if Trump is re-elected, or, hell, if ANYONE is elected, is advocating violence.

      • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        I advocate shooting lessons because you donā€™t want to hit the wrong object. Isnā€™t that a safe thing to advocate for? šŸ˜œ

        Do we need to talk in code like unalive someone in Minecraft/Roblox?

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          I absolutely encourage good firearms safety IN GENERAL. Youā€™re never too young to learn good trigger discipline. ;)

          Advocating it in response to an election or other political event carries unfortunate connotations which isnā€™t allowed.

          Iā€™m actually quite pleased at the number of gun groups that have popped up on Lemmy. Liberal Gun Owners for example, I think thereā€™s one for LGBTQ shooters as well. Canā€™t recall the name of it.

      • Thoth19@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        Since someone is going to be elected pretty much no matter what, ā€œpractice shooting if a tone is electedā€ is logically equivalent to ā€œpractice shootingā€.

        Banning proponents of 2A is a bit weird for a politics sub but I like it. Gun nuts are crazy.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Oh, I have no problem with proponents of the 2nd Amendment, itā€™s when you start talking about the 2nd Amendment in connection with other people that thereā€™s going to be a problem.

          ā€œTrump just became the nominee? Better brush up on the 2nd Amendmentā€¦ā€ Surely you see the tone there. Itā€™s really no different than what Trump was saying on 1/6, only actually invoking weapons.