Ex-prosecutor says Cannon's latest move is 'contrary to what the law directs judges to do'

[applegrove]

Ex-prosecutor says Cannon's latest move is 'contrary to what the law directs judges to do'

David McAfee
May 12, 2024 2:45PM ET

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-cannon-contrary-to-law/

"SNIP...........

Vance went on to describe how, recently, Cannon refused to set a new trial date, citing a number of motions on which she has yet to rule. Some have said this could result in Special Counsel Jack Smith getting the opportunity to replace the judge.

Vance highlighted the law itself, arguing that judges are required to set a trial date.

"This case could and should have been ready for trial in December or January if she had been working on the motions and realistic deadlines all along," she wrote. "Judge Cannon’s action here bears a striking similarity to what Trump asked her to do back in July of 2023, when he and co-defendant Walt Nauta filed a joint motion asking her to 'postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated.' She didn’t then; she scheduled the May trial date. But now, she has given Trump what he wanted all along, and it’s contrary to what the law directs judges to do."

Vance goes on to quote The Speedy Trial Act, which says, “In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.”

............SNIP"

[TheRickles]

1. Maybe it's contrary to the law, but she's probably thinking "So whatcha gonna do about it?".

Because it seems like there's no effective response to all the delaying tactics that Trump's lawyers and judges have been throwing out there. IANAL, but it seems like this could go on forever.

[applegrove]

2. What does IANAL mean?

[Mister Ed]

5. "I Am Not A Lawer".

TIACMT*

* These Internet Abbreviations Confuse Me Too

[applegrove]

7. Thanks.

[GReedDiamond]

6. I Am Not A Lawyer...nt

[applegrove]

8. Thanks.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. It only has to go on until the general election

After that, if Trump is elected, the Justice Department will drop the case. If he's not elected, then nobody cares what happens to him, he's finished. Either way, Cannon has paid for her bench.

[TheRickles]

10. Good point. And the way things are going, that'll be a piece of cake. :-(

[duckworth969]

16. Yep

[republianmushroom]

3. So what. The puppet master wanted it, so the puppet judge gave it to him.

Tell me what is going to happen to this puppet judge ? Not a damn thing.

[Chainfire]

4. So, Cannon would reply, "Ok then, Jan. 2030, unless more motions are filed."

The cannon needs to be fired.

[ancianita]

11. She's already broken the 6th Amendment, which tsf wanted. It's now too late to unbreak it. Jack Smith

should make his case to the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case on behalf of the People of the United States, and in the national security interests of the nation.

[Silent3]

13. "But that's not the way things are done!"

Even an aggressive go-getter like Jack Smith appears to hobbled by the "that's not the way things are done!" sentiment, which, as far as I can tell, isn't so much a matter of what can or can't be done by under our laws, but what is seemly or unseemly to do.

Apparently it would be "unseemly" to try to get Cannon removed from the case until she does far, far worse than she's already done.

[ancianita]

14. As Special Counsel, he's no where near the "egregious" zone that would enable Garland

to restrain him. He and Garland are all about the facts and the law and whatever is proclaimed as "unseemly" or "not how things are done" is irrelevant.

He should proceed. He's won arguments before the 11th Circuit before and it would seriously consider his arguments.

[WiVoter]

12. Can Jack Smith Get This To The 11th Circuit Somehow?

I mean, 3 times and she’s out, right?

[Ojerly]

15. She's being coached

by someone that has more experience. She's going just far enough to not seem outright biased and corrupt, and still be able to explain it to the 11th.
There may be a point in which Smith is going to need to either shit or get off the pot.

[triron]

17. No she's gone all the way over to Trump's side.