Film at 11!
6 Likes
Thank also the Steiniacs, the Sarandonistas, and all the other unicorn-chasing children who stomped their feet and bawled “She didn’t earn my vote!”
#ElectionsMatter
31 Likes
Getting overruled is not grounds for recusal, so long as the judge complies with the overruling. Showing plausible bias in favor of one of the litigants and making crappy rulings in his favor is also not grounds for recusal. Like it or not, that is the justice system we have.
4 Likes
Or running Fox’s fact free mobius loop of disinformation. Could have been asleep too. You never know.
5 Likes
The record shows that if you are a lawyer working for Trump you will, inevitably, end up being a dupe or a stooge.
It is like the scene in the (very old) movie “The Magic Christian” where people dive into a swimming pool full of slime to gather money that has been spread on the surface.
5 Likes
I think that if nothing else, this has to make it less likely Cannon can follow her natural inclination to agree with team Trump’s expected argument that the U.S. District Court was incorrect in making Corcoran’s notes, etc. available based on the crime-fraud exception.
3 Likes
If you follow the thread, the reason for the recusal is the perception that she will either go too easy or too harsh. Perception of bias is grounds for recusal.
Also, please let the devil defend himself. You aren’t very good at it, and he doesn’t need your help.
Smith’s action to request/propose a protective order to bar the former president and his defense team from publicly disclosing some of the materials shared in the criminal case as part of the discovery process was brilliant. He’s turning the screws, ever-so-subtly. Increment by increment.
A tree beyond your embrace grows from one tiny seed.
A tower nine-storey high begins with a lump of earth.
A journey of thousand miles starts with a single step.
~ Tao Te Ching 64
6 Likes
Watching Adam Schiff eviscerate Durham in the hearing today.
No wonder the Republicans had to censure him. He’s too goddamn smart and effective. We cannot stand for that.
16 Likes
Her clerks are very attention-hungry young pups of the latest Federalist Society litter. They are not there to mentor the judge – they are there to satisfy their insatiable climb up the ladder to the top of the heap. And they’ll do anything to get there before anyone else.
2 Likes
Yes, but the concluding statement by Durham was the soundbite the minions will hear all night on Faux and the media - he stood by what he did in the sight of G-d or some such nonsense. I guess that made all of his BS ok because apparently G-d told him it was all good.
7 Likes
I agree completely – Josh Kovensky is a pro writer/journalist. A tremendous asset to TPM!
Deep Bow to him 
Can’t locate his TPM handle – someone please forward this to him, 'k?
11 Likes
I did follow the thread. It’s dispiriting to see the same old tired tropes of “judge did something once I disagree with so I’m gonna assert a reality where the rules require this judge to recuse from anything I care about”. No, this is not imagine-a-ponyville, and double-no, “appearance of bias” is not grounds for recusal. That’s you supposing a pony.
Also, please let the devil defend himself. You aren’t very good at it
I defend reality, and given the rarity with which I’m corrected by those with better knowledge and experience (it does happen), I’m pretty good at it .And judging by the number of likes yours and others’ suppose-a-pony and pandering posts got, reality needs a lot of defending.
There are no current grounds for cannon recusing. There are no current grounds for the 11th circuit to order her recusal. That’s the reality. Practicing attorneys more well versed than me have said so in articles I’ve linked here. They have no interest in pursuing careers as TV talking head lawyers, so they say what they know and what they think, instead of playing the pandergame that gets them invited back on the show.
6 Likes
“Christamighty!” - Ralph Von Holst
6 Likes
I don’t know, I thought it was redundant. The stuff is still national defense information and protected by the espionage act. Just because a court lawfully gave you some NDI to review doesn’t mean you can disclose that it in any way outside within the team as permitted by CIPA. Unless folks want their own section 793 indictments. I suppose having it in the instructions makes it also contemptbof court and thus immediately jailable.
5 Likes
The irony of Schiff getting the Trump stooge Durham to admit under oath that Russian intelligence assisted Trump on the very day that Trump stooges in Congress censured Schiff for investigating whether Russian intelligence assisted Trump is probably lost on the MAGA-hatted Trump stooges in the electorate.
24 Likes
It definitely puts her in the “willing dupe” category.
2 Likes
… wrapped in a riddle under an enigma and thoughtfully layered between sheets of Charmin. Not unlike the rest of DT’s defense.
2 Likes
I think that is the point. Very subtle. And really smart people not thinking much about it.
I telz 'ya, he’s the gantse megillah (the whole thing.)
1 Like
Most facts and reality are.