Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith canāt appeal, expert says
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trumpās motions to dismiss his classified documents case.
Cannon shot down Trumpās motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.
Cannon after a daylong hearingĀ issued an orderĀ saying some of Trumpās arguments warrant āserious considerationā but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that ārather than prematurely decide now,ā she denied the motion so it could be āraised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.ā
ā¦
āThe Judgeās ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ālegalā as our native language,ā former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote onĀ Substack, calling part of her ruling ādeliberately dumb.ā
āThe good news here is temporary,ā Vance wrote. āItās what Iād call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argumentābut just for today. She did it āwithout prejudice,ā which means that Trumpās lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.ā
Many, many people turned out for the primaries. Just to find their polling places closed or their name purged off registered voter roles.
People DID show up for 2016. The DNC railroaded Hillary through anyways. If youāre going to remember history, remember WHY it went poorly, ffs.
In such huge numbers right? You have evidence of this as itās not conspiracy right?
I remember this noise being made too and it had no basis back then, but again, please feel free to provide the evidence.
Removed by mod
So name calling in lieu of evidence? If thatās all you got MotoAsh, Iām glad you put it on the table.
I guess the irony of stolen elections claims without evidence is just lost on some churlish segment of the left.
Removed. You can attack Democrats all you want, but donāt attack other users.
Civility.
I remember history. None of that happened. Bernie lost by 8M votes. This was a decade ago, move on and stop spreading Russian propaganda.
The chair of the DNC was forced to resign because the Democrats were caught conspiring against Sanders theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders āShe has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clintonās rival, Bernie Sanders.ā
Sanders supporters sued the DNC and their defense was picking the Democratic nominee was free speech and that they had every right to, āgo into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.ā
Despite article IV section 5 of the DNC charter stating, āThe chairperson is required to exercise impartiality and evenhandedness in the preparation and conduct of the presidential nomination process, specifically between the presidential candidates and campaigns. It is important that all parties involved adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and just process for all candidates.ā
Youāll notice and nowhere in your link does it say anything about purging voter rolls and closing polling places.
I didnāt say they did? But they did argue in court that the Primaries are just a show and that theyāre going to nominate whomever they decide. And WikiLeaks revealed that they were conspiring against Sanders.
Thank you that was the link I was going to get too. And yes, HRC still won, but it is not arguable that the DNC didnāt put their thumb on the scale for her which is - very plainly - anti-Democratic.
The only lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed was withdrawn on further clarification over use of DNC voter targeting systems. Again, you are spreading misinformation.
I think you misread, I Said Sanderās supporters filed a lawsuit. Hereās the case
https://casetext.com/case/wilding-v-dnc-servs-corp
It wasnāt purged voting lists, it was pre-committed superdelegates for the DNC. They didnāt need to give a shit what happened at the poles.
If you remove the super delegates from the primary, Clinton still handily beat sanders. If you give sanders every super delegate of a state of a primary he won to him, Clinton still handily beat him.
It was never close, she beat him by 12 percentage points.