“The issue, now before Cannon in the Southern District of Florida federal court, is likely to remain in the political debate at least until Cannon holds a hearing on the legal power of the special counsel to prosecute a defendant, on June 21.”
Two things:
-
Jack Smith has to file a motion to have her removed at this point. I understand that under normal circumstances, you don’t want to piss off the judge. But how much more adversarial can she be at this point? She’s literally trying to have him removed from the case. At this point, Smith has nothing left to lose. What else could she do to him? Have him deported?
-
This has got to be appealed if/when she rules that he has no authority to prosecute. If she rules that special prosecutors have no authority to bring these cases and that ruling were allowed to stand, wouldn’t it invalidate other cases brought by special prosecutors? Or at the very least give those convicted grounds for having their convictions thrown out?
The role of a district court judge is to do two things:
- Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
- Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don’t align well to existing precedent.
Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it.
That, and he got to appoint his own judge. And he’s got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up. And he’s got all sorts of national security secrets, but is still walking around free. And he’s got virtually unlimited resources, but isn’t considered a flight risk.
And he’s got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Only 3?
I assume Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett are guaranteed to back him. Kavanaugh likely will, and Roberts if he thinks he can get away with it while maintaining his thin veneer of legitimacy.
Roberts has Legitimacy?
-
