Did DOJ Send A Warning To Judge Cannon?

[gab13by13]

I have been asking whether judge Cannon had jurisdiction to take on this case. DOJ says in its opening that this judge does not have jurisdiction, it then goes on to say that if she decides to issue an opinion in favor of a special master that that would be considered obstruction of justice because it would hamper DOJ's investigation. Also, if there were grounds for a special master, the request for one should have been made with a D.C. judge where jurisdiction resides. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

That is my big takeaway from waking up not being able to sleep.

So I ask my next question, can a federal judge be charged with obstruction of justice?

[duforsure]

1. I would hope they can,

And isn't she also a member of the Heritage foundation too?

[gab13by13]

5. I updated my thread.

There are tons of Federalist Society judges out there, can't do anything about that.

My main point is the question I have been asking, did judge Cannon have jurisdiction to hear the case? Reading what DOJ submitted it appears she should have refused to take the case because she did not have jurisdiction, it should have gone to a D.C. judge.

[duforsure]

53. Yes, she's being told by DOJ in their filing she should be very careful.

[Joinfortmill]

2. Boy oh boy are we in dangerous waters. Vote.

[Irish_Dem]

3. A GOP official made to follow the law? Seems unlikely.

[gab13by13]

9. I have posted here numerous times

asking if judge Cannon had jurisdiction to take the case. I could not find the answer with the Google machine.

Go back and read DOJ's introductory statement. DOJ says that the judge does not have jurisdiction and then further down DOJ says that if judge Cannon issues in favor of Trump it would be considered obstruction of justice.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that DOJ is taking this judge on.

[Irish_Dem]

13. I hope you are right.

I really do.

Many are saying she does not have jurisdiction, that seems clear.

Whether any one will do something about it is an entirely different question.

[onenote]

30. Where does it say that it would be obstruction of justice for Cannon to grant Trump's motion

I've read the pleading three times. Don't see that statement anywhere.

I also think you're wrong in your understanding of DOJ's jurisdiction argument.

[Tetrachloride]

4. FAFO .....

the acronym https://www.allacronyms.com/FAFO

[MotorCityBeard]

51. Farmers Advocating for Organics?

Sorry, my mind is getting overloaded with all the new info this morning. I loled at that from your link.

[Tetrachloride]

52. Flatulence all for one ?

also,
organic

)))

[rso]

6. Judge Cannon

Yes, anyone, including a Judge, can be charged if there is enough evidence. But it's academic, because I'm almost certain that the Judge will agree with DOJ.

[Lochloosa]

10. Don't bet on it. She has already signaled that she would appoint the master.

trump judge appointed in 2020. They were Judge shopping.

[gab13by13]

11. DOJ is putting the squeeze on her.

We aren't talking about delaying a financial investigation, we are talking about our national security where delays can cost lives.

Michael Cohen's prosecution used a special master and it took 4 months to go over Cohen's communications, documents. Granted that Cohen had much more material to sort through than Trump has but nonetheless DOJ is telling the judge that appointing a SM will delay its investigation which it considers obstruction of justice.

Judge Cannon has a little bit more to think about than just fluffing Trump.

[mucifer]

17. She also has to think about death threats. That's the USA now.

[elias7]

24. She would be getting death threats? You mean if she backs down?

I wasn’t aware that anyone other than the TFG cult was issuing death threats to folks. I’m guessing you mean if she decides against a special master, the cult will go on the attack.

[gab13by13]

25. Yeah, that's how the mob operates.

All Trump has to do is say something bad about her.

[rso]

19. Judge Cannon

There is no such thing as "judge shopping" in Federal District Court, neither the DOJ or the defendant can pick a Judge, it's based simply on the luck of the draw. And she merely said that she was favorably disposed to a special master, but that was before the DOJ reply.

[gab13by13]

21. I understand that but

that doesn't show she had jurisdiction, as a matter of fact, DOJ is saying in its filing that she did not have jurisdiction.

I found this from "Raw Story," I can go back and post the link.

The "Special Master" that Trump has requested would be for attorney/client privilege. There isn't any kind of case law surrounding the FBI sifting through "executive privilege," but lawsuits involving such privilege typically go through Washington, D.C. courts since that's where the Office of the Executive is located.

Several of the U.S. Circuit courts have made rulings about filter teams and whether they have the power to go through privileged documents. In Trump's case, however, he didn't file an injunction to stop the FBI from sifting through the documents. In fact, Trump didn't even file anything for over two weeks after the search warrant was executed. Once Trump's lawyers did file something it was so poorly done that they were ridiculed by lawyers across the country.


https://www.rawstory.com/doj-special-master-response/

[rso]

22. Cannon

Right, and that's one of the reasons that Judge Cannon will almost certainly rule in favor of the DOJ.

[Justice matters.]

45. There is NO "executive privilege"

The USSC ruled in the past that "executive privilege" belongs to the current POTUS, not to any former guys.

Though the current supremely corrupt (6) overturned Roe v Wade, so they also are above the law.

[True Blue American]

50. Also before they informed her

The Justice Department had already reviewed the documents and had to get extra security clearance to be able to read some of the documents. And that a SM would impede bit the case and National security.

[Emile]

7. Can a federal judge be charged with obstruction of justice? Garland says yes!

No one according to Garland is above the law!

[underpants]

8. Thanks for digging in

I’d read about the jurisdiction and the filing issues.

[Buckeyeblue]

12. Do they charge the judge with obstruction over a bad ruling?

That would be interesting. Or do they ignore the judge because she doesn't have jurisdiction? That would be interesting too.

Or have they given her a way out?

[gab13by13]

15. I think the latter,

they are giving her a way out.

[rubbersole]

14. I think it would be great if she did appoint a special master.

Further expose the incompetent/biased judges tfg put on the bench. The feds have already have gone through the documents that were seized. This latest batch probably won't slow down their case. It's all treasonous unprecedented behavior that has caused historical damage to this country. We'll see.

[gab13by13]

16. I'm sure the judge could issue an injunction, a stay,

on the documents that would impede them from taking fingerprints and whatever else the FBI has plans to do regarding following up on
if damage was done.

[rubbersole]

20. The closer to the election the incriminating facts are revealed the better.

America's two week attention span can be utilized here. I just saw a poll that had Walker leading Warnock. WTF? It's Georgia, but their school system couldn't have failed that badly...could it?

[Justice matters.]

47. They already took fingerprints. They already sorted the docs.

Because the filing for the BS came in waaaayyyyyy too late.

The case should have been tossed out for that reason alone.

[yellowcanine]

18. They are telling her she will get her ass handed to her and

yes she could be charged with judicial misconduct for getting out of her lane if she rules on a case where she knows she has no jurisdiction, which DOJ just pointed out to her.

[gab13by13]

28. That's my opinion, but I'm not a lawyer.

I have been hard on Garland but I like this response. Not being a lawyer, even if this judge gave the SM I assume that DOJ could appeal the decision. Maybe that's OK with Cannon, maybe she is hard core Trump and is OK taking heat just to delay the process?

[onenote]

38. Where in the DOJ brief does it argue that some other court has jurisdiction?

I keep looking but I don't see it anywhere.

The DOJ was allowed 40 pages. They used 36. It's not as if they didn't have room to flesh out some subject matter jurisdiction argument. But they never do anything more than make a statement in the summary of argument that the court lacks jurisdiction without ever going to explain what sort of jurisdiction she lacks and why.

And arguing that "This court should be particularly reluctant to order disclosure of highly classified materials to a special master absent an especially strong showing that such a step is necessary" hardly is the same as saying that doing so would constitute an actionable, illegal act by the court. If she grants Trump's motions notwithstanding the DOJ's persuasive case that the law doesn't require her grant the relief sought by Trump, in whole or in part, the answer will be that DOJ will immediately appeal. And if the appeal succeeds, as it should, that's the end of it. Judges are prosecuted for making a wrong decision, no matter how egregious. And, god forbid, the court of appeals were to affirm her grant of the motion, in whole or in part, and goes to the SCOTUS and they affirm, none of the appellate court judges nor any SCOTUS judge is going to be prosecuted for that decision, wrong as it would be.

[C_U_L8R]

23. Won't Trump just refile in DC?

His lawyers should have known the jurisdiction issue... and it seems yet another delay tactic.

[gab13by13]

26. Judge Cannon is going to have to make her decision,

if she simply says I recuse myself because it's not my call, I suppose Trump could file with D.C.

Judge Cannon, if she rules that way, is going to make herself look pretty bad. She will have to rule for or against the SM now that she has taken the case. IMO.

[Ms. Toad]

35. No. If she lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

She lacks the power to decide the matter.

There are limitations on where cases can be filled, and if filled in the wrong court, any decision by that court would be unenforceable because it jacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The proper step would be for her to dismiss the matter. (Refusing herself has to do with personal conflicts, and is not an appropriate step if the problem is that the court lacks the power to decide this matter.)

[obamanut2012]

27. Yes, he can

He is allowed to have due process.

[gab13by13]

29. Yeah but Trump's lawyers bypassed judge Reinhart,

who was already involved in the case. I did hear that he was bypassed because he didn't have the authority to issue an injunction. The thing is the MSM was horrible in investigating what really happened, how we got to judge Cannon?

[onenote]

31. We got to Judge Cannon because she was randomly assigned the case.

That's how cases are assigned in the Southern District of Florida.

[gab13by13]

34. Not what I heard from a former prosecutor,

Judge Cannon had to be next in line on an "emergency judge" list, or something to that effect.

But going back, where was it explained that Judge Reinhart couldn't have made the call for or against a SM? One reason I heard was that he couldn't issue an injunction. There were no grounds for an injunction, the documents didn't belong to Trump.

I am saying that Reinhart could have just said no SM from day 1 if things were done properly.

[onenote]

39. If that's as clear as you seem to think it is, why didn't DOJ make that argument?

[gab13by13]

44. It's not clear,

I had to change my post above, I said Reinhart instead of Cannon.

Hey, you may be absolutely correct, that Cannon was chosen by the books. Why can't I find that out on the Google machine? I have tried to look it up. Not one news reporter in all this time reported how judge Cannon was selected.

If it was done properly, so be it. My notion that DOJ is sending a message to judge Cannon still stands because of math, 1+1=2.
DOJ stated that delays are considered obstruction of justice, I make the jump on my own, to the fact that if Cannon OK's a SM that is a significant delay.

[Mr. Ected]

32. The first question I'd ask is whether there was any precedent

It seems quite farfetched to imagine that any judge in the past would have jumped jurisdictional lines and put their neck on the block like Judge Cannon did.

However, the one thing that worries me even more than the influence of Trump would be the uprising of state and federal judges on the take from fascist leaders. Cannon appears to be one of them, and if her antics become the norm in Freeperland, we are royally fucked as a country.

So if there is no precedent, I'd say add judges to the list of those who DOJ would absolutely have to charge in order to save our democracy from the threat of Republifascists. If we lose the judiciary, my God, it's truly game over.

[onenote]

33. I think you are overstating both points

First, while the DOJ stated that the court lacked jurisdiction in its summary of argument,, it made no effort to explain that argument, or at least made no effort to suggest the court was the wrong court to be hearing this case. At most, the DOJ argument, as suggested by the one sentence in the summary, is that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Trump's Fourth Amendment claims and his right to have the documents returned. However, the portion of the brief that discusses that argument doesn't frame it as a jurisdictional argument. The only other reference to "jurisdiction" in the brief is where the DOJ disputes that it would be an appropriate exercise of the court's "equitable jurisdiction" to grant appoint a special master for reasons that have nothing to do with the court's subject matter or personal jurisdiction over Trump's complaint.

Second, I can't find anywhere that the court suggests that the judge would be committing actionable "obstruction of justice" to grant the complaint, in whole or in part. While the DOJ correctly points out the factual and legal reasons why Trump's argument for the appointment of a special master (or any of the other actions sought by Trump) are without merit, that doesn't constitute a claim that finding otherwise would in anyway put the judge in jeopardy. Indeed, the pleading ends with a discussion of what procedures should be adopted by the judge if she decides to appoint a special master.

The DOJ pleading is persuasive, but it doesn't contain the threats or arguments your post suggest it does.

[gab13by13]

36. You have shown no proof that judge Cannon was picked properly.

Why wasn't judge Reinhart asked to make the call?

DOJ made very clear in its document that delaying its investigation amounts to obstruction of justice. If Cannon appoints a SM that is delaying the investigation. A SM was appointed for Michael Cohen, it only took him 4 months to do his work.

[onenote]

41. And you've shown absolutely nothing to suggest that the clerk of the court

violated the very specific rules that govern the assignment of a judge in the Southern District of Florida.
Nor have you explained why the DOJ wouldn't have objected to the assignment of the case to Cannon (or any other district judge rather than the magistrate judge) either at the time the clerk issued its "Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Aileen M. Cannon" or in one of their responsive pleadings.

Trump's lawyers filed a new complaint, starting a new case, not a motion in the existing proceeding before the magistrate judge. So it was assigned a new case number and assigned a judge under the procedure for assigning judges that are clearly set out in the court's rules.

[gab13by13]

48. Still no proof.

I am claiming, without any proof, that the judge should have been picked from D.C. not Florida.

DOJ did address jurisdiction in its document even if it didn't expand upon it, it is in there.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

40. Glad I'm not the only one who couldn't find it.

[Historic NY]

37. They laid out what they required if a special master was appointed///

They also advised that they already examined all those records and removed anything that was a lawyer/client relationship. DOJ & FBI will not just allow anyone to access unless they have the clearances/

[onenote]

42. They laid out their arguments for what the court "should" do, not what it must do

if it appointed a special master.

There is a difference. And if the court were to make that appointment and DOJ, which would (and should ) appealed that order but lost, DOJ would have no option but to comply.

[brooklynite]

43. I'm going to repeat something I've said before...

The Trump judicial appointees are extremely conservative. They are NOT extremely "pro-Trump". None have gone out of their way to rule in his favor in a judicial proceeding.

[gab13by13]

46. I agree that it is an absolute statement to say Trump judges are extremely "pro-Trump."

It is also an absolute statement to say that none of them have gone out of their way to rule in his favor in a judicial proceeding.

[brooklynite]

49. Name an instance.