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
One of the best pieces of evidence that the "treasonous conspiracy" baloney is a ruse designed to distract from Epstein, harm the IC, and make the Trump happy is the 2018 HPSCI report about the 2016 election. Here's what @FBIDirectorKash (the author) had to say in that report:
@FBIDirectorKash: In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election
@FBIDirectorKash: Russia's active measures campaign was multifaceted, and "hacked material was disseminated through this myriad network of [Russian] actors with the objective of undermining the effectiveness of the future administration."
I've been obsessed with Trump saying he "wished her well" regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, and how neither the media nor Dems have made an issue about it. It turns out @jonathanvswan did ask him about back in 2020, and holy shit, his answer then is even worse. Follow along.
Here's the full video. Jump to the 25:40 mark & prepare to be amazed. It's worse than you could imagine. Rather than taking Swan's invitation to clarify, Trump doubles down, repeatedly expressing sympathy for her in light of her boyfriend's demise.
"I'm not looking for anything bad for her," Trump notes, while also stating that we need to let the criminal process play out. It's classic Trump - he's always sympathizing with the plight of criminals & never pre-judges their cases.
I finally had time to analyze the recent CIA report about the "ICA" regarding Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
It's a very important document, as it shows that the leadership of the CIA's Directorate of Analysis is now engaging in politics, undermining all trust in it.
People like @DCIARatcliffe and @DDCIAEllis have used the report to reinvigorate all their favorite grievances about the "Deep State" and the 2016 election. They are doing this even though the report itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that Russia actively sought to harm Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, an unprecedented attack on our sovereignty by an enemy of the United States.
Ratcliffe and Ellis have also touted the fact that the report was written by "career" CIA officers -- the head of the Directorate of Analysis, normally a career official, is listed as the author. That may be the case. But if true, it shows that the leadership of that office has now chosen to be pawns in a partisan political debate. Given this, I'm not sure we can trust any future analysis coming out of that office. If they'll bend their standards for Trump and Ratcliffe here, why wouldn't they do it on any other topic?
Nothing to see here. Just the CIA Deputy Director, @michaeljayellis, promoting a Breitbart article suggesting that former Director Brennan be prosecuted for perjury. Rather than rise to the office he holds, it looks like Ellis has decided to be a political hack. Amateur hour.
Another reason it's amateur hour is that neither the recent CIA paper nor the Breibart article actually mention what Brennan told SSCI. They'd both get an F if one was grading their work, as would Ellis for promoting it.
Here's the evidence; you can judge for yourself. On the left is what the recent CIA paper says (which, notably, is unsourced). The next two screenshots are from @SecRubio's very detailed report about the ICA.
So it looks like Brennan told SSCI that while he had some concerns about including it, he ultimately decided to relent to Comey and the FBI, who insisted on including it for the sake of completeness. I'm having trouble seeing how that's perjury if the allegation in the CIA paper is that Brennan ultimately supported its inclusion. That's what he told SSCI. Relenting = a decision to include it.
There's a myth spreading in the MAGA-sphere saying that since Hegseth is an Original Classification Authority (OCA), whatever he says goes in terms of classification. That's a red herring, for reasons I'll explain.
The war plan information was likely first classified by CENTCOM.
CENTCOM officials would classify this information derivatively, using the CENTCOM classification guide, which is required by DOD classification policy. As explained below, the CENTCOM classification guide would have treated this information as SECRET.
So once this information reached Hegseth's desk, it would have already been classified as SECRET. There was no "original" classification decision to be made at this point. The only action he could have taken at this point was to affirmatively declassify it.
As @BradMossEsq points out, this message from Walz reveals that the USG had real-time coverage of one of the targets at a very time. If this came from an IC asset, this would be classified at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level, per the ODNI classification guide.
@BradMossEsq While I don't think it would be controlling necessarily, the ODNI classification guide also makes it pretty clear that information about military planning like this is classified, at the TOP SECRET level.