Judge Cannon Kills The Classified Documents Case Because Nothing Matters

[@LegalEagle]

Will the 11th circuit court of appeals reverse the dismissal? 🚀 Extended version on Nebula! legaleagle.link/nebulaforlife Get a great lawyer, fast! ⚖ legaleagle.link/eagleteam

[@blakekaveny]

Most likely yes because they’ve reversed a few of her other decisions regarding this case.

[@stephenferry3017]

The moon logic of Ed Meese offering an amicus arguing that a regulation governing special counsels is wrong while never mentioning his appointment of Lawrence Walsh is truly insane.

[@charlesclark3840]

Yes, the 11th will reverse. And then the SC will reverse the 11th and uphold it.

[@blakekaveny]

@@jeffslote9671 what rule did they not follow then. Also were David Weiss and Robert Hur also illegally appointed then.

[@jeffslote9671]

@@blakekaveny. They failed to get the proper approval

[@rykx0r]

I'm starting to think that the judicial system at large might be kind of messed up.

[@Coolivers]

Better late than never

[@blackfox4138]

The US judicial system is actually pretty impressive and serves as the foundation for most nations' judiciary departments. The problem is that we have people in power who just flatly ignore everything about it, so it honestly doesn't matter how well or poorly it's set up.

[@garythecyclingnerd6219]

Because we never had a judicial system. We have a legal system

[@rykx0r]

@FFXIgwyn I think any system where this can happen is fundamentally flawed and requires scrutiny and correction.

[@Deus_ex_lucifina]

@@rykx0r I agree. Because at the end of the day, if a system’s efficacy is based solely on the morals of those within, then it is subject to corruption. Easily. It needs to be fundamentally changed so that lawmakers and enforcers can be as easily held accountable as regular citizens.

[@chronisi]

You can see Devin's soul dying with every upload. Imagine dedicating your life learning every pedantic nook and cranny of the legal system, only to watch very corrupt politicians and the supreme court taking a wrecking ball to it

[@jamesdwyer3948]

When I saw the announcement of Cannon's ruling I was absolutely floored. What I could find on the subject seemed completely clear that it was a completely bad ruling but I'm not a lawyer and was waiting with great anticipation for this video (knew it was coming). This is a blatantly bad call and seems to be completely agenda driven not based on either the text of the constitution or subsequent case law

[@GZilla311]

@@jamesdwyer3948It really came across as "Okay, maybe you have a point, but I don’t like you, so go away."

[@Shade01982]

Wait, lawyers have a soul? 😉

[@DavidBarkland]

@@Shade01982 Only some of them, but Legal Eagle is one of them.

[@jendee1260]

part of the gig. any licensed position has to go with the legal change flows. facts.

[@litterbox2010]

How does it feel devoting your entire life to understanding the laws, just to have the supreme court declare there are no laws, actually?

[@wesleystreet]

Laws are for little people.

[@mattryan7124]

Laws for thee and not for me.

[@thatonewitch]

​@@wesleystreet Compared to the size of our own galaxy, we are *definitely* little

[@Kleicomolo]

They once decreed that the draft didn’t constitute involuntary servitude.

[@falsemcnuggethope]

She would come up with better excuses if she understood the laws.

[@anthonyfamularo8875]

I love that this woman is so blatantly corrupt that a practising lawyer has no qualms whatsoever about saying so plainly.

[@NickiRusin]

yeah, no "it depends" here. It no longer depends.

[@V3RTIGO222]

it's honestly insane.

[@hyp3r309]

@@jamesdouthat3999your a lil slow

[@LordAus123]

This is not a defense of Cannon at all, but if we are seeing a consensus around her corruption why can’t it withstand the legal system? What sense does it make that we cannot call a spade a spade by law if everyone agrees the spade is a trump sycophant?

[@mark-ish]

Cannon has demonstrably proved it with her actions. And 1st amendment in murica is very very strong.

[@SoxPox]

Crime is legal when you appoint the judges. Who knew?

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Wealth is health. Might is right. Corruption is key.

[@I_AM_BAYTOR]

The people who put them in power?

[@Ebikelover]

Nope crime is legal when your a democrat, biden broke the law by STEALING classified documents and no charges. he broke the law if Trump did

[@thth1451]

Kings and dictators I would wager

[@scaredyfish]

Why is it not clear conflict of interest and grounds for recusal to preside over a case involving the person who appointed you?

[@Alex-js5lg]

How can a judge _possibly_ be impartial when presiding over the criminal case of _the man who gave her a lifetime appointment to the bench?_

[@johnoglesby-vw7ck]

If she was a responsible adult with a judicial temperament... this was rarely a consideration until very recently

[@raawesome3851]

Well, usually, they don't have that bias. This judge is the exception.

[@deafwatch7334]

@@raawesome3851 I dont think it is an exeption. But here the conflict of interest is very aperant.

[@omgnowairly]

Normally judges recuse themselves like 2 others have in recent high profile cases. She was advised to, then started making all sorts of odd rulings.

[@LunaTulpa]

​@@deafwatch7334it is an exception. in nearly all of the bogus post election cases that were attempted, a majority of the judges were trump (or trump administration) appointed, and literally all but one was dismissed

[@robertfriedman6686]

They’re not going to disbar her. They’re going to Elevate her to the Supreme Court if they win. They are shameless

[@nydydn]

You're only wrong on one count. There is no if.

[@gManGabe]

@@nydydn There's still the one election "if"

[@AHeinermann]

@@gManGabe the U.S. flip-flops all the time, Republicans will win again at some point regardless of election outcome.

[@chancegamesone]

the prevailing theory is that they'll keep her in that district as a wedge against any suits brought up against Trump

[@xythrr]

​​@@nydydn There will be an if, if we dont let them successfully cheat us out this time, like they tried to in 2020.

[@drexeldragon1723]

So you can't serve on a jury if you may have sniffed a fart from the defendant one time but you can be a ruling judge when the defendant appointed you to that position. Makes sense.

[@blacksun3884]

We have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.

[@AntCritter]

Maybe because Donald's farts smell sweet as candy???

[@zdwade]

Confirmed by the senate

[@mnxs]

​@@zdwade*appointed by one political entity, confirmed by another political entity. Or in other words, not guaranteed to be appointed due to merit and integrity, but not unlikely to be appointed due to loyalty. Not to mention that _relying_ on the Senate, even assuming it's impartial, to do suffient due diligence on every single federal judge that is nominated (which I'm imagining isn't few in a country the size of the US), seems foolhardy - it's small fish for the larger political machinery to devote time on. They have bigger issues to work on, in principle at least. This is why these appointments is most commonly a simple rubber-stamping, afaik.

[@warlockd]

Man its even WORST out in the hicks in Texas. You can be voted AS a judge and not be able to read. There is a "Judge class" you have to attend but oof. People wonder why are appelt courts are all full up and this is one of the reasons.

[@spdcrzy]

Watching Devin's older videos is scary in retrospect because there are actual legal questions being asked and answered and decisions being critiqued at an objective level where there actually isn't necessarily a "right" and "wrong" YET - that's the whole point of a case. Now, Devin doesn't even use the word "allegedly" anymore to shield himself because, well, frankly, he doesn't have to. The shit coming out of SCOTUS and the court system at large is SO insane that a practicing lawyer doesn't even need to use legalese anymore.

[@VincentMurphy000]

Reverse a 50 year standard? Supreme Court: We've done worse.

[@calistudent6335]

The Supreme Court invented things out of thin air and overturned precedent over and over in the liberal era. Everyone freaking out about judges being conservative is totally hypocritical about it, because it turns out people like dictatorial oligarchy and hate democracy when it lets the other side win.

[@athenaraines]

They’d overturn the Bill of Rights if their corporate overlords demanded it

[@TheRabidDeer]

It feels like reversing a 50 year standard is now the standard thing that SCOTUS does

[@chonzen1764]

How can a 25 year old regulation have a 50 year standard?

[@Slackow]

@@chonzen1764a 50 year old standard can apply to a 25 year old law if the standard applies to multiple laws

[@hfar_in_the_sky]

This is moving dangerously close to "All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others."

[@paolovantassel1989]

That ship has already sailed when the Supreme Court decided that the president is not subject to the laws the office exists to enforce. Next stop on the train is "Four legs/America good, two legs/tyranny better."

[@mzaite]

We passed that somewhere around 1910.

[@CompComp]

It's always been that way. We were just making some things more equal or the appearance of equal... Now we basically have a king. I'm not expecting anything good in the future.

[@dontmisunderstand6041]

@@mzaite ... I think you should do a bit more digging on American history. There were definitely a lot of cases of "more equal than others" prior to 1910. And that's even if we ignore that whole slavery thing.

[@Duchess_Van_Hoof]

"You have your lower animals to contend with, we have our lower classes." /The farmer whose name escapes me.

[@MeeraReads]

In early 2019 I asked my Con Law professor about a case and he said not to worry about it, the dissent was “just Thomas ranting and calling for Roe to be overturned like he always does but no one listens to him.” Fast forward to 2024 and I think about that conversation at least 4-5 times every week.

[@chazcmeekins83]

Ohhh....ufff....that sucks Clearly you're Con Law professor didn’t understand what the Federalist Society or what "originalism" was created for. 🙄

[@MeeraReads]

@@chazcmeekins83 no, I think he thought Thomas & co were fringe extremists

[@ruairi_d]

I'm not American. But damn your judicial system is broken. That judge is corrupt af.

[@mr.d.rektorstudios]

Thank you, we know. We can do nothing about it.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

What gave it away

[@Brad84L]

This channel isn't the slightest bit partisan 🙄

[@DBZ003]

@@Brad84LHe has his biases for sure, but everything that is happening that he’s explaining is completely illegal and unconstitutional…

[@PersTG]

​@DBZ003 Exactly. The guy is literally a lawyer, he can pick apart these things with solid claims all day everyday. He's got his biases but he's definitely not talking shit

[@DudokX]

SO the justice just writes up an "opinion" randomly without reason *wink* so the Judge can immediately use it to dismiss the case.

[@snowmonster42]

Do you think they were trying to be subtle? They aren't. We're way past that.

[@asiabrew81]

This is what Sotomayor pointed out in the immunity case (?)

[@snowmonster42]

@@asiabrew81 I think so. All mainstream legal opinion was that SCOTUS was putting their finger on the scales by taking the case, let alone by delaying their decision as long as they did, and that this alone was incredibly inappropriate. I really believe that nobody expected them to not only find in favor of Trump, but give him even more than he asked for. Between this and the Chevron decision, the president can essentially commit any crime he or she wants. Anything he does that isn't covered by immunity is basically still immune because the evidence you need to prove it can't be used. People need to realize that congress can't just pass laws to change this. Even if Congress was in any place to do that, they still can't pass any laws to limit this, because those laws would be unconstitutional. We are absolutely cooked. It's worth noting that Joe Biden has all of this immunity right now. Nobody seems to be giving him any credit at all for going on just as he always has despite the fact that he now has the kind of power that an emperor would. I guess some people think that not acting like a despot makes him weak.

[@pacmonster066]

@@snowmonster42 You are correct that congress can't pass any laws to fix this, but there isn't *zero* that can be done. A constitutional amendment can make the law unassailable (unless another amendment appeals it). As the Supreme Court can't find a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional" as it's literally in the constitution. While this would do it, it's also extremely unlikely to ever happen in our modern political climate, as a constitutional amendment needs 3/4's of the states to ratify it, which ain't happening. The more likely mechanism this gets fixed is that a later Supreme Court just reverses their opinion. Like with the recent case overturning Roe V Wade (I forget the specific name of the case), Brown vs the Board of Education, and many other keystone decisions in Supreme Court history, sometimes the judges just turn away from precedent and change their minds on past supreme court decisions. Now, there are two downsides with this. The first is that every time the Supreme Court goes against precedent it makes the entire system less stable because of it. I mean how can any law be trusted to stand if the judges can just change their mind. But the more immediate issue in this case is that that "changing their minds" usually involves enough time passing that completely new judges are on the court. As obviously not likely that the sitting justices would ever change their mind on a decision *while they're still on the bench* . And since the Supreme Court is a life appointment, the time it takes until new justices can come in and change a shit older decision is usually takes decades. So while it's true things are grim, it's not 100% impossible to fix (just very unlikely any time soon)

[@snowmonster42]

@@pacmonster066 I am actually aware of these issues, but I got very discouraged and tired of typing. Also, I wouldn't have explained it as efficiently as you did - I was also thinking of Brown v Board of Ed, but all I could think about how long it took to overturn Plessy. I was also very tangled up in the fact that even when there is an entirely new court that would be willing to overturn this, there is still nothing that can be done unless without a case. Even a righteous case can take years to work its way up to that level and if things don't go according to plan, then you end up with doubly settled law. Aside from this, they get to choose whatever cases they want. So the solutions were making me feel even worse. But yes, of course you are completely right. I appreciate that you stepped in to help a fellow monster.

[@TheSeparhim]

This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the current system is broken and needs major rehauls in order to not have situations like this. However, we all know that this will not happen with how much power the current system holds.

[@madcat789]

The people know. Many no longer care.

[@TheSeparhim]

@@madcat789 That is also an issue as with 1/3 of the population that are allowed to vote not even showing up, but even if there was a movement for change, the current system would just nip it in the bud immediately.

[@SapientGalaxy]

Because there is no peaceful method to fix the issues. Everyone with any amount of power in the government is corrupt to their core. The media is owned by the same billionaires who bought the polticians and so only the propoganda they allow will be doled out to the masses. Any politician who wants to improve your average American's lives will have many millions of dollars dumped into their opponents race to ensure they lose. Anyone who dares disagree with the dear leader of their party is called a traitor who is trying to get the other party's dear leader elected. But remember, we live in a democracy so there's no place for political violence.

[@Aethelbeorn]

The past, present, future system is broken.

[@WrecktifiedUSBB]

Looks like it's already getting an overhaul lol.

[@northernhills863]

(5:40) "If you have a legal issue and DON'T have Judge Aileen Cannon in your pocket..." You NAILED that.

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

I don't think most people realise just how close America is to falling off of the democratic cliff....

[@AegixDrakan]

There's also a bunch of people who DO see it, and are cheering for it. :(

[@TJtheBee]

Bold of you to assume it hasn't fallen off already.

[@SageWon-1aussie]

I'm waiting for the mandatory "we're a republic" brigade.

[@Chumpsdookiediaper]

​@@TJtheBeeclose, but not yet

[@justkittensbeingkittens5892]

@@Chumpsdookiediaperyup

[@CdnTrader1]

The People: You cannot just get rid of 50 years of precedent. Alito and Thomas: Hold my unethical beer.

[@emisor9272]

To be fair, Alito's dissent might've been just that, as it was ancient

[@opossumlvr1023]

If a previous court opinion is wrong regardless how old it is should be over turned.

[@eastvandb]

@@opossumlvr1023 But it's not wrong, and precedent actually matters in law.

[@opossumlvr1023]

@@eastvandb Precedent changes as courts offer different opinions, precedent does matter but it can also change.

[@eastvandb]

@@opossumlvr1023 Yes, but this nonsense that she's peddling has no intellectual or legal foundation. She's trying to change a law single-handedly to protect her patron. It's disgusting.

[@whobitmyname]

Who could have ever known that giving a cartoonishly lawless man the power to decide who decides the law would be a bad idea?

[@smalltime0]

The system is working as intended.

[@Settleslash]

@@blakebeckett4981 become a billionaire and then you too can participate in fair and balanced election with your own massive donations.

[@Bmerchin]

@@blakebeckett4981not vote for the crazy’s- for a start!

[@kimadams8757]

​@@blakebeckett4981educate. Agitate. Organise.

[@KarldorisLambley]

@@blakebeckett4981 target practise more.

[@buckdashe2571]

Man. Cannon dug deep to find those nuggets to support her decision while dodging the landslide of decisions tumbling across the page. How such a biased judge can remain managing this case is an embarrassment.

[@ZCid47]

I am so sorry for Legaleagle, he spend decades of his live try to study and understanding the law just to then be show publicly that the rule of law is a myth and the reality is that money and power dictated his country justice system

[@garret6464]

I feel bad for him too. Intentionally rotting his brain to pander to a leftist audience on KZbin just like john Oliver and all of the other democrat mouthpieces. Must be painful

[@JoeVO24]

sounds like a phoenix wright plot except its real and happening right now-

[@OmnipotentNoodle]

​​@@JoeVO24 Well Phoenix Wright is a satire of the Japanese legal system, which IRL has a 97% conviction rate for crimes, almost entirely due to the literal psychological torture of suspects, regardless of their true culpability for the crime. They care more about convicting someone than solving crimes.... sound familiar?

[@Whitecroc]

@@OmnipotentNoodle Dark Age of the Law

[@davidradtke160]

@@OmnipotentNoodleI mean it dies if your poor…

[@rymdalkis]

This is how authoritarian states work. The law is just a piece of paper, what matters is what the ones in power tell the courts to rule.

[@Sewblon]

But here, the ones in power are the Biden administration, the ones that the court just ruled against. So the courts are ruling against those in power. So how is this authoritarian?

[@nathanjora7627]

Biden is saying to the courts to judge in favor of Trump ? Who knew

[@damedusa5107]

People need to look at the indictment for trump and the Electors he tried to appoint. It genuinely was an insurrection attempt, Jan 4th riots was just a side show that day. Shocking that people are backing him so blindly. I have spoken online to many who don’t know anything about what he actually did. He doesn’t deny it nor does his legal team. Only defence was to ask supreme courts for immunity. It’s shocking. USA under trump is heading for a crazy time. Laws no longer matter to the power.

[@NickiRusin]

Russia is 100% like that. The judges go out the back of the courthouse, get a call, then go back in and give a verdict. This is basically just that with extra steps.

[@damedusa5107]

@@NickiRusin tbf it’s always happened for the elites, it’s now Justin the open and very brazen

[@Talon771]

Judge Cannon is no longer fit to serve as a judge. Impeach and disbar her.

[@The_Cylly]

Bold of you to assume that she was fit for that duty to begin with.

[@garythecyclingnerd6219]

Jail her

[@oldschooloverlord]

Sorry, her next job is going to be Trump's Grand Vizier.

[@genghiscan2918]

​@oldschooloverlord you misspelled "Grand Wizard"

[@micahbush5397]

Like that's likely to work in the current political climate; no Republican who fears Trump's ire would support it.

[@leonleeds534]

As a brit, ive never got my head around how the USA can think having the politics intertwined so tightly with the judiciary is either normal or good for democracy.

[@jessehachey2732]

Annnnd that would be why their “democracy” is crumbling…

[@Summersong2262]

The UK does something very similar, is the thing, where judges are directly appointed by the PM by way of the Monarch. It's just that nobody's tried to stack the court over there, at least as egregiously.

[@patsysadowski1546]

@@Summersong2262you must be American if you think the monarchy has power. They are appointed through the Judicial Appointment Council. The Lord Chancellor makes appointments too. No Judge or Prosecutor here runs for office or raises campaign funds. They are selected on their merits and experience by peers. The politics of judges is not a consideration or even known to the public. As they follow the law.

[@leonleeds534]

@@patsysadowski1546 Exactly this.

[@pacmonster066]

@@patsysadowski1546 Judges in America don't typically "run for office" either and are supposed to be appointed based on their merits and experience. And there will *always* be politics involved as long as somebody in the chain *is* elected to their position and even if they aren't, you *cannot* eliminate all bias in a person. There will always be judges with more conservative strict interpretation of law views vs more liberal "what the law means to say" views. You're completely delusional if you think the UK is insolated from corruption in their judicial system. Yes, right now it's particularly bad in the US because the people who had the power to appoint in the US chose judges *not based on their merits and experience* but based on their partisan beliefs. This is not normally how it's supposed to work. Right now we have an entire political party breaking how the system is supposed to function. The "checks and balance" system that makes the US political system so strong only works when the 3 powers are working in concert for the good of the nation.

[@SG-cv4pf]

At this point I expect the US courts to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

[@fitosolares]

They already have.

[@Captain_Pudding]

It's probably the only important government document that wasn't stored in a bathroom

[@JC-tq8gm]

The left already does with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th... You guys have been butchering the Bill of Rights for years now. Biden says it out loud or rights are not absolute.

[@Techguyericd]

this is what happens when you allow Nicholas Cage steal it...

[@AwkballOddward]

They've already ruled the constitution it'self is unconstitutional... Dafuq???

[@elirevzen418]

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for recent law school grads. You just spent years of your life learning the law and its interpretation. And now all of a sudden a bunch of loose Cannon(s) in the judiciary make that all but meaningless.

[@flairium5296]

Can I wake up one day and not learn that our country isn't heading straight towards self destruction.

[@OhhCrapGuy]

No.

[@lohikaarmeherra-1753]

Enjoy the last days of the republic. USA - inheritance squandered...

[@TeacherTaj]

@@lohikaarmeherra-1753 Yes. Sad but oh so true.

[@qzy-179SanTzxkW]

Only if you wake up dead...probably

[@RenardThatch]

Sure, turn off the Internet.

[@josephmcgowan9936]

Wasn't it Trump's team who requested a special counsel in the first place? How does "the defendant's legal team did something they shouldn't have" translate to "case gets dropped"?

[@aslonz5308]

So basically there's this thing called money.

[@miguelalonsociervoquijano6087]

I watched another video that explained it wasn’t that the special counsel was hired it was how he was hired. He ignored how Jack Smith and team literally had no rebuttal or answer to the judge’s basic questions which lead to this. Jack’s team did a poor job responding to very basic questions. Happy to send a link to another lawyer who literally reads the transcript.

[@user-wb4hw7xn3s]

@@miguelalonsociervoquijano6087 Yep. Smith was never confirmed by Congress, unlike every other special counsel and AUSA. This guy refers to Nixon but omits the entire 1 time special deal where Congress essentially obligated and ordered the DoJ to choose someone.

[@ICantThinkOfANameB]

So what I’m getting at is Cannon basically was like a Holocaust denier saying “yeah there’s all this evidence, but I don’t believe it and I know a guy who said it wasn’t real, so I’m going to ignore all of it."

[@billybarnes1763]

All this evidence from a guy that wasnt real? Think about that for a second.

[@Bacteriophagebs]

How did this comment not get eaten by YT for using the H word, let alone H plus "denier?" If I type those words the comment vanishes every time.

[@Mohenjo_Daro_]

Seems more like a flat earther: "Yes, all the other planets are spheres, but the one we're on is special and doesn't follow those rules"

[@zecorezecron]

Well, all the "evidence" was mishandled. Also, what are your opinions about the classified documents that Joe had from when he was VP?

[@Ryuujinv01]

@@zecorezecron It wasn't. And he followed the rules in the system for returning it as soon as it was located. There's a reason NARA exists and it's because documents do go missing completely free of malice 'all the time'.

[@tslfrontman]

Watching from Canada I'm still baffled how the US let their justice system turn into a bad joke. Oh, it's 1 guy abusing power and a bunch of ankle-grabbing sycophants?... You guys have that problem a LOT.

[@lesliefranklin1870]

It seems you understand perfectly.

[@bluedragonfly8139]

Not really. Haven't had that problem until very recently.

[@joeuser633]

@@bluedragonfly8139 That problem is Trump and his sycophants aka today's Republicans.

[@username7763]

Our DoJ did a terrible job with the case.

[@bluxyeux]

we are learning here too. so far behind appointing judges and JT seems to only appoint judges he has history with to adjudicate government scandals.

[@leoalcaraz6153]

It’s disgusting how the party who rallies against politicking from the bench does just that; she doesn’t just deserve to be impeached she need to be jailed and disbarred

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

@@leoalcaraz6153 Every accusation is a confession of guilt.

[@michaelsnedker5446]

@@doomsdayrabbit4398pretty much

[@charlesreid9337]

The literal standard tactic of the GOP is to accuse Democrats of what they are actively doing

[@PassiveSmoking]

With republicans, every accusation is an admission.

[@Deathstrom1850]

Gop stands for Gaslight Obstruct Project

[@majuuorthrus3340]

I'm still baffled as to how "the defendant gave the judge their job" isn't seen as a potential conflict of interest.

[@alainpbat3903]

Why is this judge allowed to serve?

[@roamingthereal4060]

Why are people allowed to vote?

[@Abedeuss]

@@roamingthereal4060 Being a judge is not a constitutional right.

[@_hootjohnson]

@@roamingthereal4060troll

[@timl9724]

It's called freedom

[@danielreed5199]

@@timl9724 And soon it will be Free Don

[@Abedeuss]

Normally judges have to recuse themselves if the case is about someone they're biased about... why does she get a pass?

[@Matsokune]

Oh, because she's clearly completely unbiased /s

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Because REASONS. 💪😎✌️ Because wealth. Because connections. Because corruption. You can't stop it. XiXiPi is all powerful.

[@ReezeGoingSenseless]

who is gonna remove her for it? If the response to violations can be a :" Or what?" , it's effectively a free for all.

[@filipwolffs]

They don't have to, they're strongly encouraged to do so. There's nothing actually forcing them to recuse themselves, it's based on an honour system. Cannon has no honour.

[@FreeOfFantasy]

Because she has reviewed it and decided she isn't biased. The mechanism for removal of a federal judge is congress, so that isn't happening.

[@WolfWalrus]

Let the record show this video's original title was "Judge Cannon Dismisses Docs Case, Reveals Herself As Complete Partisan Hack"

[@fatesDeath]

the irony is real

[@LordWaterBottle]

"Judge Cannon Kills the Classified Documents Case Because Nothing Matters"

[@Narutass43]

Walks like a duck Quacks like a duck

[@PlayinFreak]

I mean, no need to be coy about the truth.

[@SmittyWerbenJag3rmanJenson]

​@@fatesDeath Cope harder that you support people who don't believe in law.

[@zepher664]

Cannon has repeatedly shown she has no business working in the field of law.

[@Keithustus]

She probably wouldn’t be a bad legal clerk for some actually qualified judge. So long as the judge didn’t mind trashing half her writing.

[@bobbyfeet2240]

I'm not sure I'd. trust her to run a Denny's, let alone a court.

[@brandonguthrie6511]

The corruption in all corners of the government is so disheartening. I feel so powerless to do anything about it.

[@Donthaveacowbra]

Let's be frank, there is corruption, but let's not try to make it seem like this is the same between groups.

[@hammurabii.3173]

@@Donthaveacowbra one is corporate corruption the other is just blatant antidemocratic corruption shaking the fundamental pillars of the US political system and checks and balances therein. One leads to exploitation, abuse and greedy individuals accumulating wealth and power the other to the end of US democracy.

[@bluedragonfly8139]

VOTE!!!

[@kiwihame]

Vote for the side trying to fix it. Vote blue.

[@donnadumare]

Vote blue to have a vote in 2028 ❤

[@brianrobinson9979]

I love how many times Judge Cannon basically says "I'ma leave that to a higher court to decide." When she's literally discussing the outcome of a Supreme Court decision on that topic! Hey Devon, why were the Lawyers not throwing those case decisions in her face?

[@normalchannel2185]

Because judges have final power, cause they are supposed to be impartial

[@Tyler.8046]

They almost certainly will appeal, and then Trump will appeal and the supreme Court will decide... again. We see how that went last time and Justice Thomas has already given his opinion on this as well which disregards precedent.

[@Tyler.8046]

Why she's able to completely disregard appellate court and SCOTUS decisions though confuses me. Trump should have been required to appeal to reach SCOTUS, Cannon shouldn't be able to just throw the trial out on those grounds.

[@lalilu3382]

​@@Tyler.8046 wont that take too long and not matter as trump most likely gets elected anyways and then there will be even more difficulties?

[@M4TCH3SM4L0N3]

​@@lalilu3382 it's not going to be resolved before the election, and if Trump wins it absolutely will get swept under the rug, though I'm sure by that time we will have had much bigger things to worry about. But no, do not just lay down and assume that Trump has this; the news seems to want us to think that, and it's absolutely way closer than it ever should be, but Biden is slightly ahead based on some of the more reliable polls, and if people actually get out and vote, there's no reason we shouldn't win it.

[@ronblack7870]

it's clarence thomas that opened his mouth and said that special counsels are not in the constitution. even though that was never even the question they were addressing. so he outright told the florida judge to go ahead and dismiss the case against trump.

[@johns5558]

Ah it was Thomas, yeah I saw that, I think Cannon took it as license. Insane.

[@Captain_Pudding]

That's because Thomas and Cannon are owned by the same people

[@darksaint0124]

Immunity is also not in the constitution, has never stopped one of these courts from just making it up out of whole cloth.

[@jamesdwyer3948]

@@darksaint0124 Even more telling is that immunity is mentioned in the constitution in some places such as the speech and debate clause. The constitution provides for immunity to members of Congress such that they "cannot be questioned in any other place for their speech or debate in either House, with the exception of treason, felony, or breach of the peace" yet did not provide immunity to the president, therefore it is not an oversight.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

@@ronblack7870 Neither is the Supreme Court's ability to overturn laws. Interesting.

[@xZOOMARx]

Imagine paying all that money for law school, spend all that time educating yourself on common law and precedent, all that time upholding professional and ethical standards just to watch a deranged tv star morph the most elevated court into rule by fiat.

[@hotfightinghistory9224]

She took the case, delayed it as long as possible, and then dismissed it at a time when, successful appeal or not, it cannot be retried before the election.... *drops to knees* They played us like a damn fiddle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@daviddavidson6278]

Its hilarious that all of this was lost way back in 2016. So much of Trump tearing down the legal system literally just came from 3 supreme court appointees in 4 years

[@scionofdorn9101]

They may have played YOU like a fiddle, but the deeply cynical among us saw this coming a mile away. Trump has been interfering with and deferring cases against him most of his adult life. One would have to be naive to think that was ever going to change.

[@Ryuujinv01]

​@@daviddavidson6278 Just a reminder that this came on the heels of random rules being added by Mitch like "no replacing justices in the 4th year of an administration unless they have an R next to their name". A reminder to highlight that Trump was in no way a departure from Republican politics ever since Goldwater. Those came on the heels of knowingly lying to start multiple wars, which came on the heels of years long investigations into Bill which only found a BJ he got by an employee that didn't work for them until the investigation was already ongoing for over a year and Miss Lindsay crying about the purity of the office. Which came on the heel of Reagan dealing with terrorists. These are the people the third way has been meeting half way, this is why everything gets worse always.

[@BabaBooey195]

Basically canon admitted her client is so guilty she would rather ignore 50 years of presedance and the constitution because shes not a judge shes a plant. Ok gotcha.

[@JustAnotherViewer10]

She’s a judge. Trump is not her client. He’s a defendant.

[@BabaBooey195]

@@JustAnotherViewer10 😂 trump is definatley her client and she may be a judge but she is 100% incompetant and totally corrupt. She wont be a "judge" for too much longer cuz she has failed her job at almost every single turn 🤭

[@steveaustin2686]

@megancunningham9471 Cannon has basically been on Trump's defense team, instead of being a judge.

[@UnexpectedDanger]

@@JustAnotherViewer10 She 100% works for him, that much is obvious.

[@jackturner214]

@@JustAnotherViewer10 Trump might as well be her client the way she has favorably considered every cockamamie theory that has come out of the defense team; literally, she's given extensive consideration to their theories, as though they were important questions of law, whereas most other judges would have not put up with what are clearly stalling tactics. She is either in the tank for the defense or she is out of her depth on a case like this; neither is a good, and these are not mutually exclusive.

[@adamnevraumont4027]

The federalist society has suborned the US justice system. The federalist society was designed to replace judges with politically "correct" office holders. Their judges do not care what the text of the law, the intent of the framers of the law, the text of the constitution, the intent of the writers of the constitution, fundamental justice or anything else says, other than what serves their political ends. They have suborned a huge chunk of the judicial branch, and have a majority of the SCOTUS, and have been open about the goal for the last 30 years. At this point, the institutions of the USA will not save the people of the country from this attack. The people of the USA have to save the institutions.

[@Sewblon]

What did they say about this goal?

[@arturoaguilar6002]

I didn't expect the term "politically correct" to have this meaning.

[@adamnevraumont4027]

@@Sewblon About the federalist society judges? It exists with the express purpose of providing politically "correct" judges to be placed throughout the US justice system. That is why it was created and what its recommendations are used for. It isn't a secret. The only interesting part is that it has now succeeded. The US judicial branch has become suborned.

[@Sewblon]

@@adamnevraumont4027 But where do they lay out their goals?

[@sprockkets]

Well, not really. The federalists society wants to undo all the great decisions of the last nearly 80 years, because they believe in the originalist crap. But even then, it still doesn't make sense.

[@mam162]

You know, Devin, you may want to devote a video to talking about the ramifications of all this on law school. I've read that they're really struggling to adjust to the new realities--how exactly can you prepare for the bar exam when 40-year precedents like Chevron are getting tossed? And how are con law profs supposed to teach in that kind of environment?

[@dc9662]

With the $upreme court for sale, anything is possible.

[@M.A.C.01]

Judge cannon is a good example of why judges can’t always be trusted

[@timl9724]

You can't be trusted really

[@rc7625]

​@@timl9724Wow, you sure got 'em there, little guy.

[@_hank9508]

Nah. Judge cannon is a good example of why better-be-safe-than-sorry seemingly doesn't apply. You have a judge literally appointed by the defendant. There are more than enough judges that could have done this job. There is absolutely no need to risk having an impartial judge oversee any case. It's not far fetched to think she'd be biased so why even have her oversee the case? The discussion of why she isn't removed should have never come up. She should have never even been considered for this task. Let her work on different trials and just pick someone who is more removed from parties involved than her. The whole system has no safety checks in place to prevent the most direct, obvious forms of abuse.

[@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters]

More like can never be trusted.

[@LeafBoye]

​​@@Mr.MasterOfTheMonstersBe careful or rc will make fun of you

[@joeym5243]

I thought the reason why Supreme Court Justices were appointed for life was so they wouldn't be affected by partisan politics?

[@thatonewitch]

I think that's where the problem arises

[@joeym5243]

@@thatonewitch but this judge isn't in that situation and it's pretty clearly acting in a political way

[@Wagga-mt6cx]

It's so they wouldnt worry about impeachment or losing votes for next term based off of a decision they made. It's what is causing the current situation because the supreme Court can rule against the constitution and there is zero checks for it

[@Khronogi]

You are supposed to have to get through congress. Dont fprget that republicans essentially stole two seats through lies.

[@llyrghmnghyll]

The Heritage Foundation targeted the Supreme Court in order to make it Political. The Heritage Foundation is fundamentally a Conspiracy against the Public.

[@chocoboko123]

When I was a kid we learned about how awful it is in other countries and it made me feel safe. Now that I'm an adult I picture people in other countries looking at us and going, "we may have problems but at least we're not America."

[@DoubleL11862]

You know it's bad when Devin doesn't say "It depends"

[@thedebatehitman]

“Seeking no truth. Winning is all. Find it so grim, so true, so real.”

[@JamesDziezynski]

Great tune, sadly true.

[@timl9724]

That is the mantra of Leftism since the French Revolution

[@mj91212]

What is this from?

[@Kidzelda0]

​@mj91212 the Metallica song "...And Justice for All"

[@seanheath4492]

@@mj91212 "...And Justice For All," by Metallica.

[@angiki9988]

Overrule five decades of precedent? Surely the Supreme Court wouldn't do that again.

[@IceWolfLoki]

This week ;)

[@trlwah9353]

not to sound dramatic but this is a slide of more power that is horrifyingly close to the series of events leading to fuhrer, which started as a “well I have a duty, so I can bypass processes just in case of emergencies you know?” and that scares me quite a bit

[@thaphreak]

"We are going to ignore vast portions of the law" - "Judge" Cannon

[@laurendoe168]

The Supreme Court has demonstrated a total disregard for stare decisis on multiple occasions. If anything, this disregard is what "defines" this cohort.

[@chernobyl169]

Man, I remember when this channel was just legal analysis of high-profile cases. I mean, it still is. But now it's in the context of a rogue judicial system that's making a mockery of the rule of law.

[@skellys1948]

@@username7763 It's not anything political. It's legal. The same "reasoning" of this judge would apply whether the defendant was a Democrat or Republican...it's basic law.

[@leirbag1595]

@@skellys1948 Ah yes. The judge appointed by a felon is now dismissing a case about said felon. That's definitely not politically motivated altogether. No one is saying a Democrat wouldn't have the same reasoning. What is said is that a politician is being protected from legal repercussions by corrupting the judicial system.

[@SimonBuchanNz]

​@@skellys1948ah yes, the "this lawyer's entire video, including all the references is wrong, I know better, this is basic law" comment. (This is hardly even the only lawyer commenting on this either.)

[@xwrequiem5133]

You know it's hit the fan when LegalEagle stops using "probably" and "potentially" and just straight up calls it "nuts".

[@JamesDziezynski]

I'm still dumbfounded that a judge can oversee a case involving the person who appointed them. Even when America was kind of working, it's wild this wasn't addressed.

[@blakekaveny]

Normally it’s not an issue. He’s had judges he’s appointed rule against him many times before.

[@CaptainKremmen]

To be fair, lots of judges appointed by Trump have ruled against him and his cronies, such as in a bunch of the fake election fraud cases. Judges are supposed to be following law. It's only when they don't that we have a problem.

[@SortOfEggish]

They are judges they are supposed to be impartial. But Trump is on record agreeing with you. He claimed a case against him would be biased because the judge was a woman that didn't like him. Hence the Republican party's many, many, many judge appointments during his stint. We as the normal people of the US will be at risk of a populist dictator for generations

[@galmud1508]

@@blakekaveny Yeah I think Cannon's behavior goes much deeper than just being appointed by Trump. Trump picked her specifically because she was already in his pocket, or he knew how to coerce/persuade her to end up there. And this district is where Mar a Lago is located so he would have a decent chance of any federal indictment against him, ending up in her court.

[@seriouslyshortofnormal925]

​@galmud1508 So your contention is that Trump can see the future? The weird conspiracy theories you people come up with.... lol

[@systemchris]

The US is literally being broken from inside😢

[@whizthesugoi]

i rember about draining the swamp

[@davidbowles7281]

As is the fate of most empires

[@Ebikelover]

Yes thanks to biden and the democrats

[@lgemisic]

Especially when we have been constantly told that the threat would come from outside.

[@hammurabii.3173]

@@whizthesugoi yeah but he forgot to mention that he brought his own swamp with him

[@vvohvaelez9277]

Easily the most unqualified judge in the country

[@jasonirby3382]

Second only to Thomas.

[@genghiscan2918]

Kacsmaryk in the 5th Circuit gives her a run for her money

[@ChrisFarrell]

The scary thing is, this is absolutely not true. The Republicans have seated judges significantly less qualified than Cannon. I believe she does at least have a law degree.

[@Ayelis]

"I like beer 😭" - one unnamed judge, during his interview

[@zenkim6709]

I'd argue that ALL the Republican justices sitting on the US Supreme Court are giving her some stiff competition

[@docken11]

As an Australian, I am so incredibly thankful our judicial appointment process is absolutely bipartisan, with both sides taking their jobs very seriously when it comes to finding the best legal mind to serve on the High Court (irrespective of leanings). Also, thank the lord we don't have your Bill of Rights along with your Supreme Court... which vests effectively absolute control of what the law is in horribly partisan actors who cannot be questioned, fired and hold their jobs for life... wow what an error that was by your founding fathers!

[@JoeyYoungg]

I don’t know who is writing this latest season of USA, but I don’t really care for their work

[@AegixDrakan]

I'm a game writer. If I wrote this, I would be told "take it back to the drawing board, this is ludicrous and no one will enjoy this". Reality, meanwhile, can get away with anything, apparently. :(

[@lordvadertheleftie9703]

​@AegixDrakan if you've ever watched the British political satire The Thick of It then you'll see that reality has gone far beyond comedy

[@hammurabii.3173]

@@AegixDrakan It is not even that ludicrous you can see the same kinds of successive incremental changes in the political and judicial systems of 1933 Germany, Russia, or most recently Hungary. It is a dismantling of democracy.

[@Slomurr]

Season 248 is wild bruh. Mfs forgot about the character arcs we passed the first season.

[@kbrewers]

this is like game of thrones season 8. it all crashed so quickly.

[@krazyknva78]

Let's keep it 100%: Aileen Cannon is the walking-talking definition of judicial malpractice.

[@aragato409]

What a disgrace and abuse of our justice department.😢

[@yamadakenji4143]

"Legislating from the bench" obviously not a problem for Republicans if they like the outcome

[@chrisray1567]

The standard for disqualification in 28 USC 455 is the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”. How is that standard very tough to meet? It doesn’t even require a showing of actual bias, just the appearance of it.

[@the_last_ballad]

You have to convince people that questioning the judges impartiality is reasonable Amd the comments show that there are people who absolutely don't want to consider it

[@Desertphile]

In other words, her primary and only goal was to protect Glorious Leader from responsibility and accountability for the great many crimes against the USA that he committed.

[@RocLobo358]

I feel like a law student would fail any exam that would incorporate such a "legal" "interpretation"

[@Ferinex_666]

As a lawyer, what does it feel like to watch your entire profession being dismantled by right-wing fanatics?

[@The_Cadaver]

Like training to be a chef, and then everyone starts eating nothing but cold cut sandwiches.

[@VenturaHighwayman]

This whole comment section is ridiculous, the entire 9 circuit is one of the most partisan circuit courts ever but because they are liberal they get away with everything.

[@raimarulightning]

Never thought I'd see such a gloves-off title and video from you 😂😂 These are trying times, but at least we're all going insane together.

[@tonylipsmire5918]

Haha the title changed as I clicked on the video

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

The poor have no power, no resources, no influence, no leverage, no hope. And you can no longer simply "siege the castle" with muskets, molotovs, and manpower. Technology via wealth provides a shield for the wealthy and corrupt that leaves them utterly untouchable. Like Chump, for example.

[@MieyaO]

What was it before ​@@tonylipsmire5918

[@thienbaongo7997]

​@@MieyaO Breaking US Law, and it was like- a breaking bad tribute / title card font

[@tonylipsmire5918]

@@MieyaO the title was something about Judge cannon proving herself to be a partisan…. But it changed once I clicked to read the whole title

[@tonyb3083]

What’s the purpose of any law if you can just move the goalpost to fit your agenda and squeeze it against those that don’t?

[@GuacJohnson]

so that Republicans can cite them and constantly stop democrats from doing things that would "break precedent and tradition" while turning around and immediately going to break precedent and tradition whenever its convenient for them

[@stevesmith9447]

I mean, that's kind of exactly what the law is.

[@fouum989]

Both side of the aisle do this. It’s not exclusive to republicans.

[@asum7213]

​@@fouum989Can't believe Americans are still deluding themselves that it's "both sides" at this point of time.

[@Daniel_Batal]

*Sigh*... I was waiting to hear your take but knew what you'd most likely confirm. I fear we really are becoming screwed as a country under the current Judiciary. The system of checks & balances between the respective branches that we've come to expect now feels more like we're a soccer team that just had our goalie replaced with one from the other team.

[@williambridgforth8871]

Trump was the person that requested a special counsel to start with

[@qerupasy]

I can't get over the fact that this behavior is probably not grounds for disqualification.

[@GZilla311]

Who would disqualify her? Every mechanism that could is tied up in itself (due to people in favor of it quashing any attempts) or loves this.

[@qerupasy]

​@@GZilla311 I am specifically referring to 16:15. If I understand correctly, the 11th circuit court of appeals would disqualify her (from the case, not her job in general). But it sounds like the Clarence Thomas opinion is enough to make that unlikely.

[@SuperAmazingJared]

​@@qerupasy man I just don't get how a nonsequitur statement in a Supreme Court ruling has any connection to how this case should be ruled. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. It makes me feel real icky.

[@qerupasy]

@@SuperAmazingJared What gets me is that, in my head, a job with a lot of power (e.g., a judgeship) should come with a lot of scrutiny and a risk of severe consequences of you mess up. Especially in the case of the legal system, however, the opposite seems to be the case. There is so much deference, benefit of the doubt, and plausible deniability there. The phrase "Who will watch the watchmen?" does come to mind. There's also the fact that this looks so much like a conspiracy. I know that it's too easy to see conspiracy everywhere, and it's probably just aligned interests, but this seems so coordinated that it gives me cognitive dissonance.

[@ahooogerhuis]

Bonkers? Nuts? Stop throwing around these highly obscure and technical legal terms. Give it to me straight!

[@typemasters2871]

To put it simply, it’s crazy

[@Gamma0_0]

"Show me proof that crime is illegal" type comment

[@normalchannel2185]

Given to you straight is this: Cannon dismissed the case saying that the PROSECUTOR is illegally appointed, except he is legally appointed

[@bluedragonfly8139]

...Wacky?

[@LLJVBass]

There absolutely *has* to be a corruption investigation on her.

[@DoveAlexa]

She'll just find herself innocent

[@TheCatherineCC]

best we can do is a supreme court nomination

[@scottlapointe3201]

Just like the judges in NY correct? If you don't agree then why?

[@the_last_ballad]

​@@scottlapointe3201 because Cannon has been blatantly favoring a defendent that gave her the job, and the NY judges actually presided over things the way people expect an impartial judge to do? Corruption isn't "this judge didn't give me the result I wanted" it's a judge letting outside forces dictate their decision-making. Which Cannon has been making baffling moves that disregard the precedent that judges are supposed to follow in favor of a defendant that gave her the lifetime appointment. What argument do you have for the judges in NY being corrupt, beyond they didn't favor Trump?

[@Pyxlean]

​@scottlapointe3201 Cannon ignored 5 decades of legally binding precedent, did the NY Judges do that? No.

[@icommentalots]

It's amazing how such a complicated system of law can be destroyed so quickly by so few

[@apjtv2540]

Dear America, Get your shit together please. Kindly, The rest of the goddamn world.

[@dc9662]

Dear rest of the world - you first. We've been around for a MUCH shorter time, what's your excuse?

[@RocLobo358]

Don't fight, kids. We can all get our acts together

[@ElectricAlien577]

​@@dc9662 The united states bends the rest of the world to its will.

[@Deus_ex_lucifina]

Tell us how. We would love to hear it, since it apparently is so simple.

[@TitaniumTurbine]

⁠@@dc9662 That’s not a good argument considering that most of this country considers itself a ‘first world country’ and has pride around it. This situation is not that many shades away from a South American or African country with a dictator investigating itself and finding they did nothing wrong. This is easily corruption.

[@anthonydeadman]

I'm losing more and more faith in my country with each passing day stuff like this happens.

[@ReikuYin]

It just keeps getting worse. The nightmare just won't end. You think it's over and just... "No. *Never*." I feel so scared and sad for my state-side friends.

[@GZilla311]

The most annoying part over here is twofold. 1. People still claiming "no one is above the law". That’s clearly false. 2. People saying the jig is up and it’s all hopeless, which obviously is a big help to people who are already depressed.

[@gnocchidokey]

we're scared too

[@kehlcassidy9562]

I'm scared too. I really need to get my Irish passport renewed

[@Ullumma]

Thank you for your efforts to keep everyone informed.

[@foggy8298]

Damn if US law can just let shit like this happen legally then I think it was always broken to begin with

[@ferinzz]

You can get away with a lot when it's based on a 200+ year old document written in an open ended way.

[@MarquisLeary34]

Always was.

[@kaijuultimax9407]

It's more that laws are only as strong as the people enforcing them and the US is currently a pathetically weak country.

[@TimEssDub]

Rich men wrote the Constitution

[@brenta2634]

I really don't like living in a judicial theocracy.

[@BlackWater_49]

It's harrowing to see the US loose the halfway decent impartial judiciary it had so far...

[@wolfiemuse]

Our SC has been a conservative majority since 2016 that slowly expanded its power and actions in order to benefit themselves later on.

[@MrPenguinsfan66]

They were groomed and monitored by the Federalist Society. They were observed and confirmed that their entire purpose is through the judiciary, they will push and ensure their ideology is forced on America. The countries norms have placed the SC as the highest power as they persist long beyond an administration and not tied to the direct whims of the voters.

[@NitroDragon]

@@wolfiemuse While true it is also not the first time taking control of the court was attempted. Republicans just made the mistake in the past of choosing Conservative judges that were actually conservative and not just partisan hacks so were surprised when the cases they then brought to SCOTUS failed. Sadly the GOP learned and started shoving in bought and paid for hacks with zero experience (Amy was a judge for less than 3 years before being appointed to a life-time position) and can now shove through their bs cases.

[@username7763]

@@wolfiemuse What new power did the supreme court give itself? I mean, marbury vs madison debatably was a power grab but since then?

[@darksaint0124]

You mean the same court that just straight up stole an election in 2000? What are you guys even talking about? And why is it so divorced from reality? This court has been conservative for generations. I have never seen a liberal court and I'm about to turn 40.

[@stevefurrier9932]

In Britain there needed to be clear writing. There was an issue,when the British government wrote Men should not sleep on the train station Or something similar,or when a law said that the prostitutes can't bait men into their apartment from the street,or public,so the balcony was legal for a lot of time. If she was in Britain,and got familiar with these cases,then the wording could be important

[@QuesoCookies]

Partisan judges feel empowered to appeal cases to partisan courts until such time as the partisan supreme court dismisses the case for good or makes a partisan ruling. Shocking. No one could have foreseen this.

[@thomasstine705]

No judge should hear case of person who appointed them

[@THE-X-Force]

I've had crunch wraps more supreme than Clarence Thomas' "court".

[@GZilla311]

To be clear, it’s John Roberts's court. But yes.

[@THE-X-Force]

@@GZilla311 🤓 ☝ ummm ACKTSHUALLLY .. I KNEW THAT ALREADY Mr. Zilla. But Thomas is specifically a part of this story, *_NOT_* Roberts .. THANK YOU!

[@GeneralLizations]

It's like a C- law student that was given a court in a place where she was the only passing student, handed a grad school project from the literal institution itself, she deliberately dis-interprets the law to spite all her professors who gave her the grades she deserved.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

0:40 - Chapter 1 - What is a special counsel ? 3:05 - Chapter 2 - The appointments clause & federal statutes 6:15 - Chapter 3 - Cannon's bomb 12:35 - Chapter 4 - Linguistic shenanigans 16:05 - Chapter 5 - What happens next ? 17:35 - End roll ads

[@millardg_]

reveals herself?! woah.. totally thought she was nonpartisan until today !

[@ChrisFarrell]

😂

[@andygibson7390]

You were slow on that. She had acted lick trumps lawyer instead of an impartial judge since she was appointed. Sha and the corrupt supreme Court need to be removed and changed with bringing the judiciary into question on big money and gifts for favours.

[@oldschooloverlord]

I'm just hearing this for the first time.

[@quantumblurrr]

@@andygibson7390 You are slow on the sarcasm detection m'lad

[@TitaniumTurbine]

@@quantumblurrr To be fair, I can’t blame them for not detecting that sarcasm with the way the comment sections are across KZbin. The ‘lack of awareness but full of opinions’ approach is pretty common now.

[@memecity9849]

Corrupt Cannon

[@charliebrady3751]

The DOJ regulation under which Jack Smith was appointed was drafted by John Roberts when he was still in private practice. In a normal world you would say he would never vote to declare that regulation unconstitutional - but are we in a normal world?

[@mnxs]

I mean, Rudy Guiliani can hardly be said to represent what he was in his earlier years now in his later years. Even more generally, you could say that people just change. I still agree that it's pathetically hypocritical of Guiliani, and would be of Roberts, but it wouldn't be shocking.

[@ravensdark99]

There is your new attorney general right there. That woman just scored a major career in the new ministry of truth (coming in dec to your homes as well)..and Im not joking

[@TitaniumTurbine]

Ministry of Truth (aka Propaganda Ministry). I refuse to believe my country would choose to go down this road again.

[@athroughzdude]

Cannon is padding her resume for Supreme Court seat.

[@crenfick7750]

It must be wild to be a lawyer watching the rule of law crumbling before your eyes.

[@Xarvix]

Honestly, in my mind this counts as clear corruption.

[@archerelms]

Not just in your mind. In any rational person's mind.

[@usseg]

What the actual F is up with our Judicial branch lately...

[@andrewmeyer8783]

Fascism

[@kicapanmanis1060]

@@andrewmeyer8783 I would say liberalism is a bigger problem. Time to scrape it away.

[@AegixDrakan]

Decades of conservative efforts to gain control of it, all paying off at once.

[@GuacJohnson]

theyve been working to take them over forever, data has shown time and time again their policies aren't any where near popular enough to take power democratically (with the statistics demonstrating that conservative parties suffer the more democratically an election is run, let alone extremists like those that make up the RNC platform). They were doing it quietly till Rudy Guiliani came out and said openly it was the plan and that they would break major precedent by stopping Obama from being able to appoint judges during his 2nd term thus holding hundreds of positions till and for the next Republican president and openly stating they would act as obstructionists to any policy put forth by democrats during his term. Only in America can you openly obstruct and corrupt the Judicial and Executive branches and not be considered a traitor to the country.

[@Vexlich]

As someone who’s getting a law degree in criminal justice, this whole current system is so painful to watch

[@davidrastall5347]

What you are doing is important. The US is being erased by partizan judges. What can we do as concerned citizens?

[@Ayelis]

Stand Up America looks good...

[@WilhelmScreamer]

My lawyer has advised me to not complete this joke

[@leirbag1595]

Someone had an idea last weekend, but they can't tell the tale as of now.

[@SAOS451316]

You can vote, for one thing.

[@finishednebula8460]

​@SAOS451316 yes but when that fails, we have the second amendment.