Judge Cannon denied Trump's request to dismiss the Espionage Act case against him, and DeSantis settles the challenge to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law.
If she is suggesting the counts in the indictment may be "unsalvageable," and deferring a ruling on them until jury instructions -- after jeopardy has attached -- isn't that kind of ominous? A dismissal at that point would be final and unappealable, wouldn't it?
Re: Cannon's action - the issue raised is a *question of fact* - not whether the law was valid, but whether his actions *fit* the law - i e. a question of *fact* - which is the bailiwick of *juries*. If she had ruled on it, she could have *easily* been overruled by Appelate - and been removed. She eas mostly keeping *herself* on the case.
I'm with you up until the last 11 words. My point is just that she's had ridiculous rulings previously, and been reversed, and — removed or not — that would delay things. I'm not saying it's everything, at all. I only gave it four paragraphs of discussion, really. But, I do think it's worth noting that Cannon issued a ruling that keeps things moving toward trial.
David Mixner will, indeed, be missed.
Congratulations Florida activists. This shows that even without winning a suit at the bitter end, much can be accomplished by trying.
If she is suggesting the counts in the indictment may be "unsalvageable," and deferring a ruling on them until jury instructions -- after jeopardy has attached -- isn't that kind of ominous? A dismissal at that point would be final and unappealable, wouldn't it?
I find it to be bad writing.
Thank you Chris. It was a good day in Florida for "Let's Say Gay!"👍
As for Cannon, yes, at least she basically ruled to keep things moving forward and
it wasn't a win for Trump.
Re: Cannon's action - the issue raised is a *question of fact* - not whether the law was valid, but whether his actions *fit* the law - i e. a question of *fact* - which is the bailiwick of *juries*. If she had ruled on it, she could have *easily* been overruled by Appelate - and been removed. She eas mostly keeping *herself* on the case.
I'm with you up until the last 11 words. My point is just that she's had ridiculous rulings previously, and been reversed, and — removed or not — that would delay things. I'm not saying it's everything, at all. I only gave it four paragraphs of discussion, really. But, I do think it's worth noting that Cannon issued a ruling that keeps things moving toward trial.