Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker
Fairness to whom is the real question in this case. I suppose being a judge entitles you to determine the "who" and the "fairness." But some entity that is unbiased should determine what judges get appointed to the courts.Also, I am completely uneducated/ignorant in how the judicial system works. However, I obviously have thoughts about what is fair and to whom that fairness should be applied. Just sayin'.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker
Sadly, accountability is a very long way off. It will be generations until we can fix this entire cluster.And at most, a few low level peons will get thrown to the wolves and the ones that really need it will get a slap on the wrist and a prize package from Bed Bath and Beyond.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker ... and he put a judge in place -- with fealty only to him and not the law -- to protect him from the law.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker I find it hard to believe there isn't a single person still at the DOJ with access who still thinks it's reasonable to protect Trump. Release the damn report. If Jack Smith had the foresight to keep a copy for his own protection, he should release it.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker trying to figure out who would have standing to sue for its release - either congress people or news organizations
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
It is obvious indeed...
-
@Strandjunker I find it hard to believe there isn't a single person still at the DOJ with access who still thinks it's reasonable to protect Trump. Release the damn report. If Jack Smith had the foresight to keep a copy for his own protection, he should release it.
@Strandjunker @PattyHanson Or, perhaps better: if a copy of the report should _somehow_ land on the desk of a Democratic representative, they could read it into the Congressional Record.
-
@Strandjunker trying to figure out who would have standing to sue for its release - either congress people or news organizations
@brianrepko @Strandjunker Congress for certain could. But I seriously doubt the Republican regime will allow it since they're in control.
And it's feeling less and less like we'll even get a real vote for the midterms.
News organizations are completely compromised though. If they got access somehow (I don't think they can, but *if*) they'd bend over backwards to sanewash it, then breathlessly make a big deal about whatever distraction the regime came up with to make people forget.
-
@Strandjunker I find it hard to believe there isn't a single person still at the DOJ with access who still thinks it's reasonable to protect Trump. Release the damn report. If Jack Smith had the foresight to keep a copy for his own protection, he should release it.
@PattyHanson @Strandjunker Most likely any who have that level of access swore fealty to Trump over country though... Any few who might not have are likely too afraid of the way the government wrecks whistleblowers doing their duty. (Yeah, as a whole we never should have allowed that to be a thing as a country...)
Quite a lot of people in high places who *could* do something seem to think they don't live in completely extraordinary times and that they can just patiently wait this out.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker If law and democracy ever return to America, we need another set of Nuremberg trials absolutely. Things have gone beyond mere "corruption" into, as you said yourself, outright treason.
And all these people swearing fealty to Trump and protecting his crimes are just as guilty as if they committed them with him.
-
@Strandjunker Jack #Smith could just release report anyway - Trump totally ignores the law, so why shouldn’t Smith? It’s unlikely because Smith has more principles than Trump has ever had.
@alex_p_roe @Strandjunker You have that backwards. If he had principles he would release it and risk what the government does to whistleblowers. But that's hard and (rightfully) scary.
Rather than sticking to principles, these people are sticking to traditions.
-
@Strandjunker ... and he put a judge in place -- with fealty only to him and not the law -- to protect him from the law.
@cpurdy @Strandjunker I still think that Aileen Cannon was the best investment Trump has made in the past several years. Other investments may have increased his net worth, but this investment has kept him out of a jail cell.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker cannon can say anything she wants but her bosses have the last word: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6nH-DYeSYBA
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
In other words, accountability is unfair
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
@Strandjunker
Every share matters. Every donation counts. Please help us reach our goal and stand with us during this difficult time. -
@alex_p_roe @Strandjunker You have that backwards. If he had principles he would release it and risk what the government does to whistleblowers. But that's hard and (rightfully) scary.
Rather than sticking to principles, these people are sticking to traditions.
@nazokiyoubinbou @Strandjunker Sounds as if Smith believes in the rule of law and respects it - releasing the document would go against that principle except the rule of law has become so distorted in the US, Smith could let the document leak to show how much the law is being distorted. It’s a tough call. Trump’s thugs are scary and violent.
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @Strandjunker Sounds as if Smith believes in the rule of law and respects it - releasing the document would go against that principle except the rule of law has become so distorted in the US, Smith could let the document leak to show how much the law is being distorted. It’s a tough call. Trump’s thugs are scary and violent.
@alex_p_roe @Strandjunker There are rules about whistleblowing however. I'm pretty sure it could be done if he really really wanted in some legal manner.
But yes, there are times it might be better to break the law and at least have the potential to maybe save an entire country in so doing than to continue to enable a regime to commit crimes that are destroying said country.
-
@PattyHanson @Strandjunker Most likely any who have that level of access swore fealty to Trump over country though... Any few who might not have are likely too afraid of the way the government wrecks whistleblowers doing their duty. (Yeah, as a whole we never should have allowed that to be a thing as a country...)
Quite a lot of people in high places who *could* do something seem to think they don't live in completely extraordinary times and that they can just patiently wait this out.
@nazokiyoubinbou @Strandjunker Sadly, I think you're right. You know who I think of? Jamie Raskin, who I had a lot of respect for, and others who have stood up in front of the press claiming to have seen unreacted passages and names not yet disclosed but remain unwilling to reveal what they've seen. They still act like laws and the courts are functioning. 'We' the American public are on our own and I've got to tell you. I think we're losing the fight.
-
@Strandjunker @PattyHanson Or, perhaps better: if a copy of the report should _somehow_ land on the desk of a Democratic representative, they could read it into the Congressional Record.
@marcas Several respected Democrats have said they've seen and read damning evidence, but they refuse to go public. Most, not all, congressional democrats are preserving their own financial interests versus doing the right thing by publicly describing what they've seen.
-
Judge Cannon’s final blocking of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case — because it would be “unfair” to Trump — proves beyond doubt what the public long suspected: Trump and his cronies committed treason against the United States.
Didn't we the taxpayers pay for the investigation? So shouldn't we be the owners of this information?
