I Think This Judge Cannon Might Not Be on the Level
Added 2024-07-19 07:37:07 +0000 UTCOA1052
CAAAANNNONNNNNBALLLLLL! Judge Aileen Cannon has just made a major splash in the Trump trials by dismissing the entire federal classified documents case based on her findings that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. We try our best to pretend that this 93-page decision is a regular order released by a normal judge, at least for a few minutes, before moving on to ask: Should we have seen this coming? Does this explain Clarence Thomas’s weirdly unprompted thoughts on the same subject in the Trump immunity case earlier this month? What happens next, and is there any chance it could happen without Fort Pierce, Florida’s best, worst, and only federal judge?
BONUS PATRON CONTENT: Patrons will also hear us listen to the New York Times rub its collective chin as its The Daily podcast considers Aileen Cannon’s mysterious ways and unknowable motives.
Aileen Cannon's 93-page order granting Trump ‘s motion to dismiss
28 U.S. Code § 533 (Investigative and other officials; appointment)
What We Can Learn from American History's First Special Prosecutor, TIME (1/5/19)
Comments
Hi, this is random - am listening to interview about super court footnotes. Not sure if you are aware of the book Vision by David Tatel - he is the judge that took RBG’s spot in the fed court of appeals. He had to make a deal with his wife that if he took job as a judge, no footnotes in his opinions. There is a whole chapter about it. It was awesome.
Meridaandmouse
2024-09-24 21:34:36 +0000 UTCThomas, You just made me feel normal, I don't know if that says more about me or you LOL, you being that upset about the "news" not giving information has been pissing me off for a very long time. All to often I hear a lot of words that add and subtract so much from themselves that they end up at zero. It is so frustrating. I feel like I remember informative news, but now I have a few podcasts and substacks (and some professional journals). infuriated is not a strong enough word.
Autistic Dilettante
2024-07-29 20:47:56 +0000 UTCFun fact: The barristers (lawyers) in English and Welsh criminal court wear wigs and so do all the judges. There was a 2007 rule that came out saying barristers were not required to wear it for family or civil court, but some still do. Also - Scotland is #1 on my list of preferred asylum states too
IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME
2024-07-24 12:04:58 +0000 UTCThe '5-4' podcast did a 3 part series about the Federalist Society, the first episode was Jan 23rd, 2024. Personally I think it is a 'must listen' if you want to understand how Lenard Leo has captured SCOTUS, and damaged our court system as a whole. They describe the feedback system used by the hard Right to move more and more rulings even further Right. Judge Cannon actually short circuited that system with this ruling. It is more important than ever to do something about this court. I wish Joe could have hung on long enough to be a second term President so he could have 'packed the court.'
Dan from Deerfield
2024-07-23 12:09:37 +0000 UTClike if there was ever a time for an" emergency podcast" this was it...
Support your local peruvian restaraunt
2024-07-21 06:27:37 +0000 UTC... donald trump was about one inch away from having his head splattered on live tv, biden can barely talk, who fucking cares about these cases anymore, they were all too little too late. i know this is a law podcast not a politics podcast but we are literally in the middle of one of the most historical weeks of all time and you guys aren't covering anything.... cmon
Support your local peruvian restaraunt
2024-07-21 06:21:39 +0000 UTCLove a good The Daily rant
Matthew Williams
2024-07-19 16:43:11 +0000 UTCI agree that the media could do a better job of bringing in expert analysis to help provide more context for readers, and there is plenty of room for criticism over the amount of coverage given to issues (the balance of NY TImes coverage of BIden's age vs Trump-related scandals is the opposite of what it should be). However, I want journalists to stick to reporting the facts and leaving it to readers to decide what to think. For example, I often see complaints about the media falling short of saying Trump lied about something, instead calling a statement false or misleading. Journalists do this because they can only call something a lie when there is evidence Trump knows he's saying something is false, so often the best they can do is fact-check him at let readers decide whether they think Trump knew it wasn't true. When people complain that the article doesn't use the word "lie" they clearly were able to reach that conclusion on their own, but they want the media to tell them what to think (or even lie to them). The prevalence of this criticism makes me concerned that many on the left are just as susceptible to misinformation as the MAGA crowd. People need to be the most skeptical when reading news coverage that agrees with their viewpoints... if people are seeking out confirmation bias instead of just-the-facts reporting we're going in the wrong direction. There's certainly value in coverage that includes a mix of facts and subjective analysis (like what OA does), but maintaining a wall of separation between news and editorial is more important to our democracy than things like the separation of church and state.
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2024-07-19 15:45:21 +0000 UTCI unsubscribed from The Daily podcast last year when they aired their coverage of TFG speaking at a Michigan car parts factory one day after Biden joined the UAW’s picket line. The reporter unquestioningly, uncritically described the factory as a union plant and the Trump-supporting employees as UAW union members. I had already seen the news story by a local reporter stating that the car parts factory was non-unionized, the employees were not UAW members, and if I remember correctly either the factory or the employees had been paid to hold Trump signs. All the local reporter did was ASK the speech attendees/factory employees if this was a UAW plant, if they were UAW members, easily disproving the TFG’s PR statements as well as The Daily’s reporting.
Kristen Leist
2024-07-19 15:37:44 +0000 UTCThe Scottish Supreme Courts: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courts-and-tribunals/the-supreme-courts/ Civil cases, with permission, can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, most criminal cases cannot.
Jono Price
2024-07-19 15:23:14 +0000 UTCSee, now my proposed intro quote really works. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jfklNJvnOvo
Richard Stifle
2024-07-19 14:11:20 +0000 UTCso this case is basically her supreme court audition/job application/internship. supreme pickme behaviour.
lauren
2024-07-19 14:01:17 +0000 UTCThe owner hates Biden for refusing to give them an interview and they've been doing everything they can to make sure Biden loses and/or drops out.
Chris Conley
2024-07-19 12:04:35 +0000 UTC5¢: as much as it feels like the whole of America is either Left or Right, Democrat or Republican, SJW or RWNJ/WCN ... AFAIK the polls say differently. AFAIK, the polls swing some 5-10% in each direction each election - and yes, some of that is people dying, people turning 18, or people moving home - but some good portion must remain of people who aren't invested in politics, and do change their mind. Damned if I know why NYT(/TDpod) are targeting THAT specific demographic, if they are, to me it seems like the smallest pie - but I guess this could combine with the ⅓ Americans who don't vote... and maybe they think their LW listeners are a captive audience? Maybe they think they can open doors to the "casual"-Right with their approach? Or, maybe, the person who makes editorial decisions about TDpod isn't very smart/good at his job. Lots of possibilities.
I am a philosophical hole
2024-07-19 09:28:51 +0000 UTCThe NYT breaks my brain because they ostensibly do the 'both sides', room temperature takes...but every time they make a pod like that recent Daily ep, they've made a choice to push a corrosive narrative. And to what end? Do they expect that if Trump gets in, they'll be thanked for their 'objectivity'? No! The right thinks they're lefty nonsense no matter what they say. Pick a side NYT....the world is changing and the USA media landscape got too toxic long ago for you to placate the right whilst being remotely truthful 🙃
Jess C
2024-07-19 08:45:43 +0000 UTC
