Here's the argument as to why Cannon's potential removal is not ripe at this time:
1. She won't recuse herself if DOJ moves for it, & the district chief judge won't either. It would only come from the 11th Circuit via reassignment on remand after a successful DOJ appeal.
2. Obviously DOJ hasn't appealed anything to date. Frankly, there's been nothing to appeal. DOJ is not going to appeal pre-trial & trial scheduling issues, as a court of appeals is EXTREMELY unlikely to second guess how a judge runs their docket. Being bad on scheduling, and...
...being generally hostile to DOJ during hearings is not grounds for appeal. DOJ need a final appealable order (not going to cover the complex appellate issues here), and there's really be nothing qualifying as such to date that's worth appealing.
3. That said, there are looming issues that could set up appealable orders: disclosing witness identities, granting any of the motions to dismiss, & perhaps some extreme version of granting the motions to compel (it'd have to be bad though; 11th Cir. will defer on discovery).
And then we'll have potential CIPA appeals if we ever get to Section 6(c) litigation (concerning what's disclosed at trial).
4. Even if DOJ appeals something, that doesn't mean they'll ask for her removal on remand. It would depend on how egregious her ruling was.
And there's some suggestion in case law that the 11th Circuit would want to see MULTIPLE instances where she was overturned prior to removing her. See the standard below. It's not clear whether they'd count the search warrant litigation.
As a result, calls for her removal are premature. I get the sentiment, & obviously she's displayed some bias, but DOJ can't appeal based on vibes. They need final - & likely multiple - adverse rulings that can be appealed where she is plaining wrong, & they don't have that yet.
If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd like to see an outline of the arguments you'd make in a brief to the 11th Circuit. That brief don't write.
Adding based on some of the comments: DOJ will absolutely point to the prior 11th Cir. reversals if they ask for her removal. I'm just saying it's not clear under the case law if those rulings + whatever she does on her first appeal will be enough, & this will make DOJ cautious.
Whether DOJ seeks her removal on an appeal will also depend a lot on what the ruling is about & its impact on the case. E.g., Cannon ordering the witness identities to be disclosed would be pretty egregious, but it's not like it would mean that Trump will win the case.
Whereas if she dismissed the case based on the PRA, DOJ would have a stronger case for bias as this ruling would result in dismissal. That's all to say, DOJ's decision will be a complicated risk-reward calculus, & and it's much harder decision than people here think.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It took a while, but I finally got the For You tab to look less like Stormfront & more like a regular feed. I spent two days clicking "Not Interested in this post" on over 100 right-wing accounts that Elon kept resurfacing. After an epic battle, I finally defeated the algorithm.
It really was a battle. As you've experienced, prior to doing this I usually saw some combination of Elon, Vivek, Vance, CatTurd, or some other freak of the week in three of the first four posts, and then it the feed became more mixed between incel & regular content after that.
This was especially strange for me, because I follow only one or two right-wing accounts. I don't look like a good target. Anyway, the algorithm did not make it easy. I'd click "Not interested" in several Elon posts in short succession, and the algorithm kept resurfacing them.
Kudos to @jdawsey1 and @AshleyRParker for finally covering the fact that Trump has been devoting time to lining his own pockets through another grifting scheme, rather than raising money for his struggling campaign.
If you bitch about bad journalism, reward good journalism.
Their article calls a spade a spade, and doesn't engage in silly both sides-ism. Imagine if all political coverage was like this.
And stories like this do make a difference with the chattering class (although nothing was stopping them from writing this story for the last two weeks). We need more of them.
Literally selling access -- not to raise money for his struggling campaign -- but to line his pockets. $7425 per ticket.
And if I understand correctly, they are charging more for dinner tickets if you pay with crypto, which isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the industry!
And if you buy $495 worth of digital cards, they'll throw in a set of the gold sneakers for free (which were originally sold for $399)!
This doesn't at all suggest that they have thousands of them in excess inventory, or that the people who bought them already got ripped off.
With Jack Smith not seeking Cannon's removal at this time, I think we can say that the MAL case is unlikely to go to trial until 2026 at the earliest, if Trump loses the election.
Cannon will be reversed by the 11th Circuit in the pending appeal. Assuming no SCOTUS review...
...she'll get the case back in late 2024/early 2025. But then immunity will be considered next, and I believe Cannon will rule in Trump's favor there too. See thread. Even then, it will be hard for Smith to seek her removal in light of the SCOTUS ruling.
That ruling will go the 11th Circuit too, and even if they reverse, it's likely that SCOTUS will take up this appeal. Between delays by Cannon (who will take her time ruling) and the 11th Circuit, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS will hear the case by April 2025, which means...
The MAL case was never going to a jury with Cannon, so other than the political gift of the timing, today's development merely accelerates the process of DOJ figuring out next steps. However, there are no "good" options for Smith. The question is which is the least worst.
I'd start from the premise that Smith appealing and NOT asking for her removal may be the worst option. She's proven that she'll do everything she can to tank the case for Trump. But asking for her removal is a pretty dramatic step, one that DOJ will not take lightly.
For a refresher on 11th Circuit precedent on removal, please see below from @alegalnerd. This would be the second time she's taken an appealable, fairly lawless step, so maybe it's enough? But she'll just say "hey, a Supreme Court justice agrees w me!"