Do Aileen Cannon next
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
152 points (99.4% liked)
News
23644 readers
4371 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah she's gonna be a supreme Court justice.
As much as I think the esteemed Judge Cannon should not hold her position, can an appeals court actually disqualify a judge?
I was under the impression that takes an act of congress. Which means without a majority there, you'll never get it.
Are they trying to undermine our entire legal system? How does one person commit so many crimes and people just let him. Any regular person would be in prison for 40 years for half the stuff Trump has done.
Are they trying to undermine our entire legal system?
Yes, and already have, next question
This ruling undermines my confidence in the legal and justice system. What a crock of shit.
Admittedly, even trying to see the right-wing perspective gives me acid indigestion, but can someone explain-like-I'm-5 why the DA's romantic life has any bearing on the matter?
Right-wing perspective: because she is using state money to pay her lover who then takes her on vacations, it is in her interests to drag out the case to keep paying her lover more money. This means she will keep dragging Trump through the mud just to keep taking funneling state money to her lover. She had the choice of who to hire as her support team, and she chose to hire someone she is not only sleeping with but also taking nice vacations with who pays for parts of those trips.
Reality: she is paying her share of those vacations and tried to move the case faster than the defendant's lawyers wanted. She has no interest in dragging the case out and all the delays have been on Trump's side.
The real issue: she had to be 100% perfect to take down Trump, and she allowed her personal life to interfere with her professional life. If she had hired someone else or put her relationship on hold, then maaaaaaaaybe Trump would have gone to trial (HAHAHAHAHA, yeah right). If this man was so important to her, then she should have recused herself.
For... hiring someone she knew. I'm still not seeing it, unless there's evidence that she was dragging the case out, as you say.
What she did was give the right a shiny object to yell at. That's it.
The way I understand their conspiracy theory is this. That the DA hired a lead lawyer in her case against Trump who she had/was romantically involved with. She did this for a high profile case as a witch hunt so that the lawyer she hired could use his pay to give her vacations and gifts in exchange for letting him work on a case that put himself and family in danger, and that several others asked before him had refused.
It's insane and makes no sense, but that's it in a nutshell.
Appreciated. Still seems like nothing to me, but I sorta grasp it better thanks to your explanation.
Because people's personal lives can impact their professional lives. I'm not saying she should have recused herself, or that there's a legitimate CoI, but moving a case due to one isn't unheard of at all.
I could see it in the case of a defendant, but for the prosecution under these circumstances I'm not sure what could be seen as affecting the states case. The right seemed to be framing it like she made the whole thing up just so she could hire an ex (according to DA/Lawyer) and pay him a bunch of money he would then funnel back to her via gifts/travel.
The fact that she got the indictment means that a grand jury already thought there was enough evidence of Trump's guilt for him to be charged, which blows their whole political witch hunt nonsense out of the water. Also if you were going to do some weird money exchange scam as the DA it seems like there would be much easier ways than hiring an ex (or even current significant other) as your lead lawyer in a very high profile case you know everyone is going to be looking at.
She could have quit and handed it off to someone else, and the trial would have started before the election. Either this was her ego, or she is secretly a Trump supporter. Either way, good riddance.
Unpopular opinion: This decision is correct. Willis fucked up badly and could not possibly continue.
I hope another prosecutor can take over successfully, but if this ends the case it will be on Willis, not the appellate court.
You are 100% correct. My only issue is this didn't happen far enough before the election for it to matter. Now it doesn't matter who the prosecutor is. This is guaranteed to go nowhere.
I don’t understand how this is unpopular. Everything about that case was not good. The decision to charge it as RICO was insane if she wanted quick results which she should have. The relationship with employee was just the cherry on top of a shit sundae.
The charges and case still stand though
I suppose the court wants to avoid a scenario in which the current president of the US would be the defendant in a state-level criminal trial. That would be a ridiculous scenario. What exactly would Georgia do if there was a trial and Trump just said he was too busy to show up?
Impeachment is the only remedy for presidential wrongdoing, and it has already been tried.
He doesn't need to show up, only his lawyers need to be there to argue the case. He can give a deposition from anywhere. If he really wants to testify, he can make time.
I feel like what she did was an ethical issue that had nothing to do with any specific case?