Okay Jay, half the lawyers who's opinions I trust (like you) say Jack Smith can still appeal based on Cannon's "decision", since she left the door open to accepting the PRA motion at a later date. The other half say he can't - So now what? It seems obvious that Cannon is skirting around the law to keep Smith from appealing. Wouldn't the judges on the 11th Circuit see that as well? She flirts with making no decision to see what Jack Smith will do, then she makes a half-assed decision to keep her option open to dismiss the case after jeopardy attaches - so the treason weasel walks free. It feels like we are still playing by a set of rules that "republicans" simply ignore.
I think it’s dicey. Smith could simply move to recuse her and not wait for a clear order that can be reversed. But that’s not as strong a hand to play.
The more I watch this debacle with Cannon, the more I'm convinced she will tank the whole thing the first chance she gets after a jury is seated. She has to go.
Agreed. She acts more like she is the defendant's attorney than a neutral judge. Jack Smith is representing us in this case. She is representing Treacherous-treasonous-traitorous-tantruming-Trump! I wonder if she is getting her legal strategies from the Federalist Society using all of their top lawyers to guide her through the trial. She is after all a member of the group that wants T-t-t-t-Trump back in the White House to do their nefarious bidding.
So, again, Jay, I have to ask: can Mr. Smith ask the DOJ for a tap on her phones? The smell of corruption and conspiracy are VERY strong here, and national security seems to be at stake. Would you make that request?
Linda Lee I have the same question. Judge Cannon is obviously dragging her feet. Her jury instructions are a joke. Her two law clarks quit on her which is very unusual. Who is behind all of this? I absolutely do not believe Cannon is acting alone.
Potential clerks know it wouldn’t look good on their resume, unless of course they have their sights on eventually clerking for Alito, Thomas, or Kavanaugh and in the case of the latter, they’d only get the job if female and had “the look”.
That’s my question too! There is nothing in her background, demeanor, or present fumbling that indicates the mind of an evil genius, but someone has clearly coached her on how to slip through the cracks of the law and justice. Hmmm, kinda like her greased-porcine crimey client.
Since she is a member of the Federalist Society I am guessing that they are guiding her through this trial. They want Trump back in. It just sounds too above her experience level to be crafted solely by her.
Someone has to be coaching her, because she's not that experienced, and those are the likely suspects. If it turns out that she is being guided by a partisan entity, is that legal / allowed? Are there potential repercussions for her?
I don't necessarily think she has someone whispering into her ear, so much as she is just genuinely in over her head and/or awed/intimidated by His Worship. She is clearly incapable of overcoming her partisanship and treating him as any ordinary citizen, so she is trying to keep all avenues open.
You are not nearly suspicious enough. She clearly made a calculated move to thwart the DoJ and justice for her Savior. That would seem to require someone with more experience advising her just how to accomplish that, especially given that it’s way outside of how Jack Smith asked her to rule.
Cannon is truly a “turd in the punchbowl”. Nicely said.
Even Cheetolini showed what a partisan hack she is by whining about attacks on the corrupt bimbo. He’s not bright enough to realize that since he has viciously attacked every other judge he has faced, standing up for this oxygen-thief proves he is convinced she’s in the bag for him.
The orange dipsh*t seems almost offended that anyone else would take his spot in the judge criticism race.
Everything about the status of the documents case is soo frustrating! It's always struck me as the most straightforward and easily proven case. A man takes government property. Said man is asked to return property. Man refuses return, lies about what he took and hides the stolen goods. Then noise, BS and foot-dragging. Sheesh! Am I just fooling myself? What'd I miss here? Grrrr...
Jay explained it at the very beginning of all this - due to the way cases are assigned in the circuit, combined with cases already on the other judges calendars it was always likely to be her.
Keep in mind that the financial worth of Knight is not really an issue here. It isn't an admitted insurer. Unless the court orders otherwise, that is a slam dunk reason to deny the bond. So arguments like "but we are fully collateralized" should make no difference.
In the bond itself it says that Knight is qualified to issue the bond in the state. I'm guessing that James checked the records on what sureties are admitted. If she's right that statement is false and seems a slam dunk perjury claim against the guy who signed the bond. He swore before a notary that what the bond says is true.
It was a weird bond form anyway. Bonds don't usually go on about the history of the case, as far as I know. But that in itself wouldn't disqualify it. Not being an admitted company does.
I think it has to. The really interesting thing is that since Knight stays on the hook, the collateral they are holding isn't in the pot the next surety can tap for collateral until the next surety has actually written the bond and it has been filed. How many sureties will trust trump to actually fork over that collateral once he gets it back?
But the financial worth of Knight IS at issue. The collateral is Knight's problem, not ours. If Trump defaults, NY State collects cash from Knight. If Knight doesn't have the cash, and needs to go after the collateral, that's their risk, not the risk taken by NY.
Again, whether or not a surety is financially secure is NOT part of what is required of an appeal bond. Whether they are licensed is the requirement. The financial security of a surety or other insurance company is relevant to whether they can GET a license. It is the Insurance Department's job to decide that. That's why a license is required to do business in the state: it is a vetting of the insurer. That vetting may well result in restrictions on the size of a bond written--apparently it does. But that's part of what the Insurance Department does. It is not the court's job to decide unless it issues a special order saying "unlicensed is OK because...." I've seen no such order in the court docket.
I will say that the revelations about the worth of Knight might very well be a factor in the judge deciding not to issue such an order.
Some good news on the non-legal front - "No Labels" is throwing in the towel, as a last desperate effort of running a holographic image of the late Joe Lieberman failed to excite major donors, and so a fond bu-bye to these eejits and their scheme to split the Dem vote in November...feh!
Judge Cannon protests that her request for jury instructions (when she hasn’t even set a trial date) should not be “interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”
This reminded me of an old New Yorker cartoon by Harry Bliss that depicted a guy who comes home from work to find his wife in bed with another man. The caption has her saying: “I know what you’re thinking, but let me offer this competing narrative!”
Thank you, Jay Kuo! This article is more of a high than my coffee is! 💙 I love the “Sorry for the visual” of Navarro on his knees before Chief Justice Roberts!
I positively love the word Schadenfriday!
I’m copyrighting it! lol
Okay, Schadenfriday (c).
You should be able to but I think you’ll have friction to overcome.
Me too!
Okay Jay, half the lawyers who's opinions I trust (like you) say Jack Smith can still appeal based on Cannon's "decision", since she left the door open to accepting the PRA motion at a later date. The other half say he can't - So now what? It seems obvious that Cannon is skirting around the law to keep Smith from appealing. Wouldn't the judges on the 11th Circuit see that as well? She flirts with making no decision to see what Jack Smith will do, then she makes a half-assed decision to keep her option open to dismiss the case after jeopardy attaches - so the treason weasel walks free. It feels like we are still playing by a set of rules that "republicans" simply ignore.
I think it’s dicey. Smith could simply move to recuse her and not wait for a clear order that can be reversed. But that’s not as strong a hand to play.
The more I watch this debacle with Cannon, the more I'm convinced she will tank the whole thing the first chance she gets after a jury is seated. She has to go.
Agreed. She acts more like she is the defendant's attorney than a neutral judge. Jack Smith is representing us in this case. She is representing Treacherous-treasonous-traitorous-tantruming-Trump! I wonder if she is getting her legal strategies from the Federalist Society using all of their top lawyers to guide her through the trial. She is after all a member of the group that wants T-t-t-t-Trump back in the White House to do their nefarious bidding.
My money is on Jack Smith who’s smarter and has much more experience than what’s her name…
So, Jay, who do you think is giving Judge Cannon these legal ploys? Or, is she really that smart and cunning to come up with them on her own?
Folks have been wondering. Two of her clerks quit this year. Why?
So, again, Jay, I have to ask: can Mr. Smith ask the DOJ for a tap on her phones? The smell of corruption and conspiracy are VERY strong here, and national security seems to be at stake. Would you make that request?
Linda Lee I have the same question. Judge Cannon is obviously dragging her feet. Her jury instructions are a joke. Her two law clarks quit on her which is very unusual. Who is behind all of this? I absolutely do not believe Cannon is acting alone.
I heard also that clerks she has offered positions are not taking her up on them. She is quickly becoming a pariah.
They recognize she is a pawn for Trump and the MAGA Republicans and don’t want to be a part of her corrupt, inevitable fall from power.
Potential clerks know it wouldn’t look good on their resume, unless of course they have their sights on eventually clerking for Alito, Thomas, or Kavanaugh and in the case of the latter, they’d only get the job if female and had “the look”.
That’s my question too! There is nothing in her background, demeanor, or present fumbling that indicates the mind of an evil genius, but someone has clearly coached her on how to slip through the cracks of the law and justice. Hmmm, kinda like her greased-porcine crimey client.
Since she is a member of the Federalist Society I am guessing that they are guiding her through this trial. They want Trump back in. It just sounds too above her experience level to be crafted solely by her.
Project 2025 for starters.
I think all those Heritage Foundation gurus are coaching her.
The SCOTUS Justice for the 11th District is Clarence Thomas. If she's being coached, it's beyond what we imagine.
This.
The Federalist Society? The Heritage Foundation?? Lots of unAmerican legal minds in those groups.
Someone has to be coaching her, because she's not that experienced, and those are the likely suspects. If it turns out that she is being guided by a partisan entity, is that legal / allowed? Are there potential repercussions for her?
Joining here with the same question in the hopes Jay, or one of his informed followers, has the answer. Thank you for asking!
Also what I am wondering. Is she more wily than we think she is, or is someone advising her?
I don't necessarily think she has someone whispering into her ear, so much as she is just genuinely in over her head and/or awed/intimidated by His Worship. She is clearly incapable of overcoming her partisanship and treating him as any ordinary citizen, so she is trying to keep all avenues open.
You are not nearly suspicious enough. She clearly made a calculated move to thwart the DoJ and justice for her Savior. That would seem to require someone with more experience advising her just how to accomplish that, especially given that it’s way outside of how Jack Smith asked her to rule.
It's not a lack of suspicion; I am open to all the possibilities. I'm just not convinced that yours is the only explanation.
Thank you so much for all that you covered today. I like finding your "hidden gems" of humor sprinkled throughout the mind-bendingly scary stuff!
Cannon is truly a “turd in the punchbowl”. Nicely said.
Even Cheetolini showed what a partisan hack she is by whining about attacks on the corrupt bimbo. He’s not bright enough to realize that since he has viciously attacked every other judge he has faced, standing up for this oxygen-thief proves he is convinced she’s in the bag for him.
The orange dipsh*t seems almost offended that anyone else would take his spot in the judge criticism race.
Happy SchadenFriday!
George
You made my day with "Cheetolini"!
I love it when you say "Ruh roh". It always makes me laugh when I feel like crying.
I grew up on scooby doo. Where they always ban the bad guys in the end. Pull the hood off…and it’s Clarence Thomas!
Jay I laughed out loud!!!!!
Oh gosh, me too. I hear Scooby in my head!
Everything about the status of the documents case is soo frustrating! It's always struck me as the most straightforward and easily proven case. A man takes government property. Said man is asked to return property. Man refuses return, lies about what he took and hides the stolen goods. Then noise, BS and foot-dragging. Sheesh! Am I just fooling myself? What'd I miss here? Grrrr...
You missed that a judge with a crooked bony finger on the scale can wreak havoc…
the bad luck judge draw.
It’s hard to believe that it was just “luck of the draw.”
Jay explained it at the very beginning of all this - due to the way cases are assigned in the circuit, combined with cases already on the other judges calendars it was always likely to be her.
Judge shopping at its finest…
Methinks employee of the month went to law school to find ways to subvert the spirit of the law.
My favorite today? “Nice casting.” Brilliant!
Keep in mind that the financial worth of Knight is not really an issue here. It isn't an admitted insurer. Unless the court orders otherwise, that is a slam dunk reason to deny the bond. So arguments like "but we are fully collateralized" should make no difference.
In the bond itself it says that Knight is qualified to issue the bond in the state. I'm guessing that James checked the records on what sureties are admitted. If she's right that statement is false and seems a slam dunk perjury claim against the guy who signed the bond. He swore before a notary that what the bond says is true.
It was a weird bond form anyway. Bonds don't usually go on about the history of the case, as far as I know. But that in itself wouldn't disqualify it. Not being an admitted company does.
It’s so fascinating to watch. Will it all unravel?
I think it has to. The really interesting thing is that since Knight stays on the hook, the collateral they are holding isn't in the pot the next surety can tap for collateral until the next surety has actually written the bond and it has been filed. How many sureties will trust trump to actually fork over that collateral once he gets it back?
But the financial worth of Knight IS at issue. The collateral is Knight's problem, not ours. If Trump defaults, NY State collects cash from Knight. If Knight doesn't have the cash, and needs to go after the collateral, that's their risk, not the risk taken by NY.
Again, whether or not a surety is financially secure is NOT part of what is required of an appeal bond. Whether they are licensed is the requirement. The financial security of a surety or other insurance company is relevant to whether they can GET a license. It is the Insurance Department's job to decide that. That's why a license is required to do business in the state: it is a vetting of the insurer. That vetting may well result in restrictions on the size of a bond written--apparently it does. But that's part of what the Insurance Department does. It is not the court's job to decide unless it issues a special order saying "unlicensed is OK because...." I've seen no such order in the court docket.
I will say that the revelations about the worth of Knight might very well be a factor in the judge deciding not to issue such an order.
Some good news on the non-legal front - "No Labels" is throwing in the towel, as a last desperate effort of running a holographic image of the late Joe Lieberman failed to excite major donors, and so a fond bu-bye to these eejits and their scheme to split the Dem vote in November...feh!
“No options.”
No Takers
Judge Cannon protests that her request for jury instructions (when she hasn’t even set a trial date) should not be “interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”
This reminded me of an old New Yorker cartoon by Harry Bliss that depicted a guy who comes home from work to find his wife in bed with another man. The caption has her saying: “I know what you’re thinking, but let me offer this competing narrative!”
So true!
The surety bond section made this insurance nerd swoon. 💋💋
I worked at Moody’s for years and chortled.
I love the whole “we didn’t follow the NY State regulations, but ya know whatevs.”
As an old insurance type, I agree!
🙂
"But just because you happen to say some things while committing crimes doesn’t make the crimes suddenly not crimes."
Ha! Love this line. Thanks for presenting all the info with clarity and humor, Jay!
Thank you for the breakdown of the legal language with bits of humor~ much appreciated! Happy Friday
Thank you, Jay Kuo! This article is more of a high than my coffee is! 💙 I love the “Sorry for the visual” of Navarro on his knees before Chief Justice Roberts!
love the Andy Borowitz post!