215 points

Personally, I urge the impeachment of Judge Cannon… amongst a sea of corrupt officials they truly are someone who stands head and shoulders above the rest.

permalink
report
reply
106 points

I can’t believe that anyone appointed by Trump is allowed to preside over Trump the defendant. That’s the most blatant conflict of interest I’ve ever heard. It’s cartoonishly corrupt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

I can’t believe they’re allowed to keep their positions when they were given those positions by a literal traitor to the nation. Same with his shitty policies.

Corrupt detective’s cases are all put on hold and past ones looked over when found corrupt. Why isn’t the fucking presidency any different? It should be more prevalent in this case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Lawyers on podcasts I listen to have said it’s normal and OK, but that Cannon is the exception who’s making it look worse than usual. She’s clearly in the tank for Trump. I’d also like to see her impeached.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

It may be normal, but I don’t think it’s okay despite what lawyers say.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Does your podcast live on Trigger Avenue?

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

She is so blatantly biased. I wonder if even this Supreme Court would back her up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
85 points
*

She seems to have been advised by Clarence Thomas on this, so the idea to do this came from the supreme court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975

Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

I don’t think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he’s advising her, I wouldn’t take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand?

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

What? No, definitely not. They’re appointed for life and don’t have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do.

(Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

People need to show up, vote, and flip the house.

If we can flip the house and keep the senate, she can be impeached. She can’t be impeached now, because the corrupt folks that wanted her are protecting her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah a ton of people who are lining up to vote for Harris also need to vote to flip the house.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Even above Clarence Thomas?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yes, I think that Judge Cannon is much more blatantly corrupt than Clarence Thomas and I don’t say that lightly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I’m glad they did it, but I’m frankly a bit mystified that they didn’t get the ball rolling on this sooner. The (clearly nonsensical) dismissal happened a while ago.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

It takes time to get all your paperwork and argument sorted, and then more time to get an appeal scheduled.

We don’t want this falling through because a procedural mistake.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points
CNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for CNBC:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/26/trump-classified-documents-case-special-counsel-urges-appeals-court-to-reverse-dismissal.html

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No 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 warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 470K

    Comments