Now that the same investigation has resulted in an indictment against Trump, Judge Cannon’s prior, fundamentally erroneous approach casts a shadow over the proceedings. Because her earlier handling of this case went well outside the judicial norm and was roundly criticized by the Court of Appeals, reasonable observers of this case could question her impartiality. Federal law has a way to deal with this challenge: under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge “shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Judge Cannon’s situation clearly fits that test, and she is obligated to recuse herself in Trump’s case.
[...]
The judicial recusal rule is about preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system; it does not require a showing of actual bias. Rather, as the Supreme Court has explained, it simply asks whether “an objective observer” in the public “would have questioned [the judge’s] impartiality.” That is clearly the case with Judge Cannon. It is irrelevant whether a judge subjectively believes herself to be impartial. Because the statute aims at ensuring both justice and “the appearance of justice,” a federal judge must recuse if facts connected to the judge’s actions in the case would cause an objective observer to doubt the fairness of the proceedings.

Judge Cannon’s other statements and actions in the prior proceedings made clear her view that Trump is entitled to differential treatment than any other criminal defendant. She wrote that “[a]s a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.” She reiterated this position in denying the government’s motion for a partial stay of her order pending appeal,
[...]
Judge Cannon has issued a repeated series of decisions that were harshly criticized by the appellate authorities as far outside the law. That is a pattern that leads to the ineluctable appearance of bias.

Under binding 11th Circuit precedents a case should be reassigned to a different judge if, among other reasons, the original judge would have “difficulty” setting aside her previous views and findings and reassignment would not result in a waste of judicial resources. Those factors clearly weigh in favor of reassignment here, due to the difficulties that Judge Cannon will likely face in diverging from her previous, unorthodox, and wrongful rulings benefitting Trump.

The bumbling incompetence, amateurish scheming, and dishonesty set out in the indictment are something to behold—Trump’s Republican opponents should, when the time is right, make the argument that this is what a second term would look like

It's such peak, perfect Vichy... when the time is right

The complete shedding of any hint of principle mattering? Check.
Paralyzing fear of losing the majority of their voting base? Check.
Pathological determination to avoid the slightest hint of "those people I hate might be right about something"? Check.

It *will* never be the right time for such folks, including Some Here.

Kristol, Romney, Cheney, Christie, Sykes, Jonah Goldberg, David French, Jeff Flake, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Denver Riggleman, Peggy Noonan, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Walsh, Mark Sanford, John Kasich, McCains, etc...

It doesn't matter when, it doesn't matter how, it doesn't what your credentials were previously. Go against Dear Leader? The Cult will eject you. Full stop.

Instance b. was at Bedminster. It's outlined at the bottom of page 16. In this case, the timing/context *seems* to imply it's about Afghanistan. This one was apparently from witness statements.

I asked Harrison Ford how ultimate Nazi puncher Indiana Jones would feel about the debate over punching Nazis in real life today.

“He’d push 'em out of the way to get in the first punch. As well he should." pic.twitter.com/rg1L2aFrpi

— Kevin Polowy (@djkevlar) June 13, 2023

Son, and I'm just going to tell you this one time. You want to keep working here, stay off the drugs.

Who knew the National Review was capable of such a troll job

But I'm glad I was sitting down when the Whatabouts-in-Chief Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz said that this time Trump had gone too far. You could've knocked me over with a Martha's Vineyard cocktail party invitation.

Considering that the last 500 times that Derley and Turshowitz have weighed in on Trump's problems and found a way to spin it against his accusers, I think my shock was entirely justified and shared by many. Better late than never, although I'm sure that they'll quickly revert to type as the trial continues.

When an incumbent administration prosecutes the leading candidate against the president, it should have a case that is so compelling that it attracts the kind of bipartisan support that forced Nixon to resign.

When an incumbent administration prosecutes the leading candidate against the president, it should have a case that is so compelling that it attracts the kind of bipartisan support that forced Nixon to resign.

Well, Bill Barr, Andy McCarthy, Ed Whelan, Chris Christie, George Conway...

So what will you be saying, "if true" leads to a conviction? And what leads you to believe that the charges aren't "true"?

Anyone ignoring at least 1-3 is not a serious or honest person.

Yes, JE is dishonest, and yet you engage with him. We've known since the failure of the second impeachment (if not before) that the GOP refuses any attempt to hold Trump accountable for even the most egregious behavior, and you know instead we'll get post hoc bull #### talking points ("selective enforcement" sounds like it might buy a day or two). I don't see the point here.

In any event, I'm pretty sure all of the above, except maybe Clown Conway, have qualified their comments with some variation of "if true."

1. Trump is only being charged on the materials that required a search warrant to retrieve. That’s why he’s facing only 31 counts specific to the documents rather than 19,000.

“There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.”

Well, I mean, no ####;

4. The nature of the materials in question differs substantially.

“What I learned,” Raskin claimed, “was that Attorney General Barr named Scott Brady, who was the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania, to head up a group of prosecutors who would look into all the allegations related to Ukraine.”

“After Rudy Giuliani surfaced these allegations,” Raskin continued, Brady’s team looked into the FD-1023 and “in August determined that there was no grounds to escalate from an initial assessment to a preliminary investigation,” and so “they called an end to the investigation.”

The contradiction was immediately apparent. How could the investigation be shut down if, as Comer said, the FBI said it was still ongoing? Who was telling the truth?

It didn’t take long to get an answer. Barr is now speaking out, and he has confirmed that Raskin is lying. Not only is he misleading people about Barr and Scott Brady shuttering the investigation, but the former AG also revealed that sufficient grounds existed to hand it off to the prosecutor in Delaware (where jurisdiction would reside).

“It’s not true. It wasn’t closed down,” William Barr told The Federalist on Tuesday in response to Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin’s claim that the former attorney general and his “handpicked prosecutor” had ended an investigation into a confidential human source’s allegation that Joe Biden had agreed to a $5 million bribe. “On the contrary,” Barr stressed, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”

It is unclear whether Raskin was fed the false information that he repeated several times (including in a later press release) or if he made it up himself. What is clear is that his tactics resemble those of Rep. Adam Schiff, the California congressman who was notorious for lying about the Russian collusion investigation.

“There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.”

C'mon, seriously? I'm pretty sure Trump is guilty as hell, but we all know that if the same evidence was discovered in regards to Obama, there's no way in hell Garland indicts. Trump being guilty, and the prosecution being politically motivated can both be true.

C'mon, seriously? I'm pretty sure Trump is guilty as hell, but we all know that if the same evidence was discovered in regards to Obama, there's no way in hell Garland indicts.

It's pretty evident again you have no clue what you're talking about. Hillary mishandled classified documents and obstructed justice. Had she been a service member, there's no question she would have been prosecuted in a New York minute.

News flash: Garland did not indict Trump. Neither did Biden despite what Fox News claims.

Do you think any of this happens if Garland or Biden says not to?

Yes. A Democratic administration would have never even filed the subpoena. They would have hushed it up.

It is a neat little trick, but one that is duplicitous at its core.

After what John Durham was allowed to do -- and I'd guess you know who that is -- I'm pretty confident Smith was allowed to exercise his own judgment.

There are two allegations that he actually shared these materials with others - one on tape FFS!

Distinction without a difference. Do you think any of this happens if Garland or Biden says not to?

Zonk has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn’t need a trial before finding guilt, but the indictment isn’t all that clear on this count. It would be one thing if Trump were waving a document around, saying some form of “see, see, this is what was done”, and quite another if he actually handed it over and allowed it to be read.

For the record, I think it is hilarious that the counter-hypothetical involves Obama doing things that are so implausible for him to have done that they are just ridiculous on their face.

It would be one thing if Trump were waving a document around, saying some form of “see, see, this is what was done”, and quite another if he actually handed it over and allowed it to be read.

I am fairly certain both are illegal since he wasn't allowed to have the documents, knew they were classified, and in one example explicitly stated that he could have declassified it when he was president, but now he can't.

However, although the indictment makes much of the fact that the other people present didn’t have security clearances, upon closer reading of the indictment, I see that it doesn’t include any improper disclosure charges against Trump, which would seem to suggest that the documents weren’t actually shared with those present.

1. Trump is only being charged on the materials that required a search warrant to retrieve. That’s why he’s facing only 31 counts specific to the documents rather than 19,000.

“It’s not true. It wasn’t closed down,” William Barr told The Federalist on Tuesday in response to Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin’s claim that the former attorney general and his “handpicked prosecutor” had ended an investigation into a confidential human source’s allegation that Joe Biden had agreed to a $5 million bribe. “On the contrary,” Barr stressed, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”

My comment wasn’t about any of the 31 counts charging Willful Retention of National Defense Information, just whether Trump could be prosecuted for improperly sharing the documents discussed on p. 16-17 of the indictment. However, although the indictment makes much of the fact that the other people present didn’t have security clearances, upon closer reading of the indictment, I see that it doesn’t include any improper disclosure charges against Trump, which would seem to suggest that the documents weren’t actually shared with those present.

In Bitter Mouse’s world, a charge not included in the indictment is still good if Trump is the defendant.

Bitter Mouse’s suggestion that the prosecutor has magnanimously refrained from charging Trump with more crimes that could be proven seems to be something he created entirely himself. Some people are never satisfied.

lock him up

I doubt the lying criminal treason weasel spends a second of time in the pokey. Wealth and power have a quality all their own. He might end up being found guilty and being punished, but I doubt that punishment includes prison time.

Wouldn't those have to be charged in NJ and not FL?

Yes, Trump has a great chance of being elected again.

** Personally my opinion about the possibility of jail time rests almost solely upon the makeup of the Florida jury, along with other juries down the road. Without jury nullification I think there's a reasonable chance he gets at least some jail time, a much better chance than he ever will have of being elected president. Anyone who thinks that he'll be able to use his phony martyrdom to win over anyone but a few more GOP primary voters is living in a dream world.

But still more likely than Trump serving prison time.

You're leaving out the possibility of a Republican other than Trump being the nominee and winning the election.

she is just as likely as not to direct the rare and beautiful "Perfectly Innocent" verdict.

Cannon is one of your dancing monkeys

You people are pants pissers.

Assuming the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, she takes a yuge risk overturning it, and I would hope that her actions would be overturned, as well.

She's already been humiliated once, if she dares pull a stunt like overturning a verdict, she'd likely be humiliated again. I think.

trump and his cultists wantonly cheered for the politically-motivated prosecution of their enemies, but have now turned into shrinking violets at the realization that their guy is now on the receiving end of a very legitimate prosecution.

Bottom line it comes down to which is more likely:

** Personally my opinion about the possibility of jail time rests almost solely upon the makeup of the Florida jury, along with other juries down the road. Without jury nullification I think there's a reasonable chance he gets at least some jail time, a much better chance than he ever will have of being elected president. Anyone who thinks that he'll be able to use his phony martyrdom to win over anyone but a few more GOP primary voters is living in a dream world.