Share.

    40 Kommentare

    1. Low_Measurement9375 on

      They can’t afford to let the public now it was a set up by the Trump campaign and the two dead guys were just collateral damage to the false flag op.

    2. Ah, that’ll work.
      /S

      She should have just put the files in neon colored file jackets while running down the hall naked waving them in the air screaming „Nothing to see here“ as loud as she could. That would have drawn less attention to this.

    3. BoredProudLiberal on

      Is there even a single non-corrupt reason to keep is as nondisclosure?

    4. Hello. Lawyer here to ruin everything. Like usual.

      Let me begin by saying that I hate Judge Canon and believe she is amongst the worst judges ever appointed to the bench, if not the worst.

      But it’s hard to say that she got this one wrong.

      It’s not unusual for either the defense or the prosecution in _any_ criminal case to file motions for protective orders against turning over certain discovery. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution has to turn over evidence that established both a defendant’s guilt _and_ his or her innocence. But not everything the prosecution has is going to be relevant to either of those inquiries. And while some evidence may be relevant to guilt or innocence, it may nevertheless be protected for legitimate reasons.

      For example: the identity of a confidential informant. That doesn’t always come in, but it is not always excluded either. There is a test that goes into whether a CI’s identity should be disclosed that essentially balances the importance of keeping the identity secret for investigative purposes versus the necessity of defense having that information for a fair trial.

      While I’m always on the lookout for further improprieties by Judge Canon, I suspect that this motion was pretty routine and mundane. We’re talking about the attempted assassination of (at the time) a former president. There is quite a bit the defense might want to see that likely isn’t relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Like intelligence gathering methods or the inner workings of the Secret Service. Additionally, there would be a legitimate reason for suppressing things like intelligence gathering methods or secret service practices even if those matters were relevant.

      So, I hate to say it, but I don’t think there is anything to really see here. With that said, Judge Canon is and remains awful. When she is appointed to SCOTUS, I think I’ll have to lobotomize the part of my brain that knows anything about her.

    5. Is this woman even alive? Anybody ever seen any other photo of her besides that stupid shit-eating yearbook grin?

    6. Altruistic_Mix_290 on

      Judge Canon is running a child sex trafficking operation out of her basement.

    7. The whole thing was staged to garner sympathy for Trump only the MAGA shooter didn’t know he was going to be the patsy.

    8. This makes absolutely no sense. How could its disclosure cause serious damage?

    9. Afraid-Expression366 on

      The suspect is representing himself and is basically not good at it.

      There. Now you don’t have to read the article. I wish I hadn’t.

    10. RoninMagister on

      If the Democrats would go after the release of these documents, or just generally put more fire under the heels of the Trump Administration, then we could learn the truth.

      If only the echo chamber of Reddit could gain legs, arms, and teeth. That would be another way to get truth to light.

    11. turquoise_amethyst on

      She either wants Bondi’s job or is angling for a Supreme Court seat when it opens up

    12. The disclosure could cause damage? To the administration, because it was involved? Thats where my mind goes immedietly when it comes to this stooge especially.

    13. espressocycle on

      I’m pretty sure any judge would have ruled against a pro se fishing expedition. This guy has no idea what he’s doing.

    14. jertheman43 on

      So, another cover-up. Otherwise, it would be simple to just release the information.

    15. ResponsibleAd2404 on

      Has any judge in history ever covered for one person as much as she has for Trump?

    Leave A Reply