• Jordan117@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Need to call a special fact-finding hearing featuring the editors of Merriam-Webster’s, Collins, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Let’s pencil it in for three weeks from next Monday.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        cake
        OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Excuse me, your honor. I think we need to have a hearing on what the definition of fact-finding is. Actually, I think we need three separate hearings. One is to define the word fact, then the word finding, and the last to define fact-finding with regards to the scope of this case. Oh, and that reminds me…we need to define the word scope as well. I mean what kind of scope? A periscope? A telescope? And how do we define definition anyway? I think we need a hearing on that as well…and what does constitute a hearing, anyway? Has that been defined anywhere? See how complex this case is? You’re confused, your clerk quit an hour ago, and even your stenographer confessed to Nixon’s disappearance and went to jail rather than suffer through this any more. So how do you expect a jury of my peers to undestand this. And what do we mean by “peers” anyway…

  • fluxion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Judges Cannon pushes back on notion that delaying things will delay things.”

    Yah, that’s a Trump-appointed judge for you.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    cake
    OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 days ago

    From the article:

    “There is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial,’ on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress,” Cannon wrote.

    Yeah, you fucking cunt. You’re doing the former while trying to call it the latter and using Trumpian doublespeak and circular logic to justify it.

    Trump’s lawyers say they believe the wording used in the search warrant to authorize agents to seize “national defense information” and “Presidential Records” wasn’t specific enough, and Cannon agreed that there were “ambiguities.”

    “The Court determines that some of the terms in that document do not carry ‘generally understood meaning[s]’ such that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such material as ‘seizable’ property,” the judge wrote on Thursday.

    I don’t even know where to begin here. Is she literally entertaining the idea that FBI agents are too stupid to know what national defense information and Presidential records are? What the fuck is that?

    I can’t even…seriously…I just can’t. This is a level of stupid that I did not think was achievable by sentient human beings that are allowed to go outside without adult supervision.

    Please, PLEASE tell me that this is finally an appealable issue. It HAS to be, right? Right? The 11th circuit or whatever appeals court oversees her will be able to removedslap her again and hopefully remove her from the case, right? Or is all hope truly lost and we’re destined to spend the next several months trying to figure out if the FBI knows what national defense information is until she finds the next excuse to delay the case for another eleventy billion years?

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Is she literally entertaining the idea that FBI agents are too stupid to know what national defense information and Presidential records are?

      It’s all the stuff with SECRET stamped on it. Not that hard. I bet even Cannon could figure it out.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I bet even Cannon could figure it out.

        Looks like we need another hearing scheduled in 2026 to figure that out before we proceed.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    All these stalling tactics need to be mitigated and the Supreme Court needs to have an enforced timeline (maybe AI or at least legislatively established) for any case and moreso for questions of enormous gravity like presidents being able to murder political opponents without worry of criminal accountabillity.

    Also, wtf are these paperless orders? How the fuck can Trump appeal time after time all the way up and down and the prosecution can’t bring up a recusal request for such extended judicial malice?

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I hope that if I’m ever charged with a serious federal crime I can have a judge who I appointed to office sit on my case…