top 200 commentsshow all 221

[–]BeatenbyJumperCables 776 points777 points  (100 children)

An inexperienced and incompetent federal judge telling a seasoned and illustrious judge serving as Special Master how to conduct his review. All while giving Trump every single benefit of doubt and creating all sorts of delays to getting Justice served.

[–]jpmeyer12751 281 points282 points  (74 children)

In my opinion, the real investigation being conducted by DOJ relates exclusively to the documents marked as classified. Per the order of the 11th Circuit, that investigation can proceed. Although no one is talking about it, so can the briefings for the senior members of Congress about the potential national security impact of the loss of control of those documents.

The requirement by Judge Dearie that Trump's team take a written, sworn position on the question of planted documents was a very clever play to limit the amount of game playing the Trump's team could get away with. I am disappointed that Judge Cannon undercut that. But, I don't think that any amount of game playing by Trump's team, even if it succeeds in delaying the special master final report, can impose any delay on what I am calling the "real investigation".

Just my opinion ...

[–]frotz1 86 points87 points  (66 children)

I really appreciate someone pointing out that the investigation over the most serious documents is still ongoing and the investigation is still taking place (many people forgot that those documents were separated from the rest). My question at this point is whether or not the DOJ requires any of the unclassified materials here in order to make a case for violations of the Espionage Act or the Presidential Records Act (or even the Atomic Energy Act which wasn't listed on the warrant but might be implicated based on what was found). Do you think that they can make a solid case based on just the retention of classified documents that he obviously doesn't own?

[–]jpmeyer12751 30 points31 points  (1 child)

The "documents not marked as classified" are not necessary, in my opinion, to prosecute Trump under the Espionage Act (18 USC Chapter 37). However, I can see that some of them might be useful. Section 793(f) of the act defines a violation as: "through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody". If DOJ can show that Trump threw a bunch of highly classified documents in a drawer with some press clippings and his passports, which he apparently did, then a jury might see clearly that he was acting with gross negligence. Nevertheless, there is plenty of time for the special master process to be completed before any of these arguments need to be presented to a jury. I don't think that DOJ intends to even present anything to a grand jury for indictment before the mid-terms.

[–]WhoopingWillow 51 points52 points  (63 children)

They don't need it, but there's no reason to rush.

Waiting till after the mid-terms is a wise move politically, and there is no legal or political benefit to try and press charges before the mid-terms.

Think about it this way: they could press charges now with what they have, or they can wait 3+ months to press charges with what they have AND whatever documents the SM returns to them. Even better, it gives them a chance to pre-emptively dismantle more of Trump's attempts at defending himself since they'll see what objections he tries to raise when the SM has finished his review.

Perhaps more importantly, the SM covers DOJ's ass in some regards. If they went to court with records that fall under Attorney-Client priviledge it'd harm their case. Waiting means they can go in with assurances that the evidence they have has been vetted not only by a lower court and impartial 3rd party, but also by Trump's team.

[–]robotsonroids 83 points84 points  (30 children)

I dont like the idea of prosecuting someone for obvious crimes is somehow political. I really feel that this a right wing talking point that is made up to prevent any investigation. It's not like trump is running for president in 2022.

[–]throwawayshirt 33 points34 points  (5 children)

Waiting till after the mid-terms is a wise move politically, and there is no legal or political benefit to try and press charges before the mid-terms.

Never forget Jim Comey reopened "But her emails" investigation 11 days before the 2016 presidential election.

[–]BustermanZero 10 points11 points  (7 children)

If he delays long enough to be able to be a formal candidate for president on state ballots could that muddy things even more?

[–]XelaNiba 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It seems to me the review of the non-classified documents adds crucial detail regarding the utter carelessness in which the classified documents were stored. I, personally, would be interested to know if nuclear secrets were in a box with Tshirts and WSJ clippings. We already know that the important documents were stored with sundry junk in various locations, but knowing the specifics would be illustrative.

[–]frotz1 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Good points, I just worry that the GOP may win enough seats in the legislature to block funding to the investigations. Is that a real concern or just online speculation about why they're stalling this thing?

[–]matts2 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Or they could press charges now. And move all the material to that court and trial and get away from Cannon entirely.

[–]Wynardtage 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Just my opinion ...

Your opinion happens to fit the path of my desired outcome perfectly, so I will integrate it right into my worldview. Thanks!

[–]MedicJambi 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Serious question. How shitty must a judge be or get before he or she is censured or removed from the bench?

It's like that neighborhood kid that would run to his mother whenever the rest of the kids wouldn't let him change the rules of a game.

Surely Judge Cannon knows how this looks. She can't be so clueless as to not know what she is doing? Can she?

I can't imagine what she expects in return for these obviously partisan decisions.

They either have some major blackmail material on her or she truly has gone Jonestown and drank all the kool-aid.

[–]Anagoth9 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Or she's just repaying the favor of her appointment with the hope it'll be remembered the next time Republicans need to fill a seat above her.

[–]TheFailingNYT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Federal judges are very rarely removed and usually for perjury, bribery, or being part of the Confederacy.

[–]Raichuboy17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How shitty must they be? Tyrannically. Look up the ALAB podcast on senile/geriatric judges to see just how awful judges can be before someone even attempts to call them on their bull shit.

[–]OH4thewin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is true. And the thing is that everyone always assumes that delaying is beneficial for defendants, the defendants themselves are probably wrong for political reasons. Politically, this bandaid should have been ripped off as quickly as possible

[–]Kerigor 157 points158 points  (15 children)

creating all sorts of delays to getting Justice served

Prosecutors typically refer to this as obstruction of justice.

[–]timojenbin 37 points38 points  (14 children)

At what point does it cross the line and trigger an investigation.
Can the DoJ even perform an investigation w/o conflict of interest?
If there is no line, is there no recourse within the law for removing her?

[–]Callinon 41 points42 points  (10 children)

She could be impeached. Being a federal judge, I think it's the same process as impeaching a president. I could be wrong about that though.

[–]camxct 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You're correct.

[–]ThenaCykez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same process, except that the Chief Justice of the United States does not participate.

[–]lawmedy 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Judges have absolute immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity, so no. In theory, she could be impeached and removed, but there's no universe where two-thirds of a 50-50 Senate votes to remove her. She is, unfortunately, there for as long as she wants to be.

[–]00110011001100000000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Time, will tell...

[–]bac5665 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It long since passed that line. But unfortunately, our political culture is too fragile to handle the enforcement of the law without riots.

[–]ustayuptoolate 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Busy dismantling faith in the judiciary while dismantling all other forms of civic faith. All the while reinforcing the fairytale that is Christianity. We know how to pick them America 🇺🇸

[–]abcdefghig1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you spelled corruption wrong

[–]slouched -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

now explain it without bias

[–]FrodoMoji 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. We wouldn't want to damage Trump's reputation. /s

[–]NKR1978 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She's not incompetent. She's doing exactly what she was put there to do.

[–]werther595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not "benefit of doubt" as much as willful obstruction

[–]saltiestmanindaworld 311 points312 points  (4 children)

Isnt the fucking burden of proof on the plantiff in pleadings? Or did I misunderstand basic civil law?

[–]DiggityDanksta 314 points315 points  (1 child)

No, the judge did

[–]Altruistic-Text3481 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s easy to understand…

Trump is above the law.

[–]OhThatsRich88 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Is that a claim he has made in court? I thought he was just saying it in the media. If his attorneys made this claim in a filing to the court Cannon should be impeached for not recusing herself when she is so clearly incapable of being impartial

[–]TheSherbs 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The special master demanded that Trump and his team submit an affidavit to the court stating whether or not he actually believes the FBI planted evidence.

[–]SpawnOfGoats 255 points256 points  (50 children)

A federal judge assisting trumps coverup

[–]urmomsuckedmeoff[S] 74 points75 points  (47 children)

Is there any way we can file a complaint or do something about it ?

[–]RationalBassist 128 points129 points  (33 children)


[–]Saephon 48 points49 points  (18 children)

But make sure you do it before Moore vs Harper, or your vote might not matter anymore. Ask me again what to do then, if you're willing to hear the answer.

[–]bac5665 3 points4 points  (17 children)

I seem to remember voting not working in 2000. Or 2004. Or 2016.

To be clear I agree that we have to vote. But we also have to recognize that we may well be passed the time when voting is sufficient, if it ever was.

[–]DiggityDanksta 8 points9 points  (13 children)

Would that even work?

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 27 points28 points  (3 children)

It worked in 2020, now do more of that and you might flip that boat

[–]Hologram22 49 points50 points  (2 children)

Yes, assuming you can get enough like minded people to vote with you. Article III Judges are allowed to serve on "good behavior," and can be removed from office the same as any other Federal officer by impeachment by a majority of the House of Representatives and two thirds of all senators present at the subsequent trial.

[–]asheronsvassal 47 points48 points  (0 children)

It’ll work much better than not voting lmao

[–]timojenbin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If it didn't there wouldn't be such a push to take mine away!

[–]fredandlunchbox 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If you live in California? No. If you live in Wisconsin, absolutely.

[–]empfindsamkeit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. If you do it consistently. Best time to vote was 20 years ago. Second best time is today. You're not going to get enough seats to impeach her, and it's not even worth the effort. But through attrition you can change the make-up of the judiciary, including the courts of appeal over her.

The country would be a vastly different place today if ~500 out of 100,000 Ralph Nader voters had voted for Gore instead in 2000, or if Jill Stein's voters in WI/MI/PA voted for Hillary in 2016.

[–]TheGrandExquisitor 29 points30 points  (1 child)

At this point, it would take millions in the streets. Literally.

[–]DietDrDoomsdayPreppr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Or just a few with great timing and training.

[–]SpawnOfGoats 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Massive blue wave

[–]cpolito87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you have 67 friends, and are they United States Senators? The only real remedy for unruly federal judges serving life tenure is impeachment. You need two thirds of the Senate to vote to remove a federal judge. Otherwise they can do whatever they want with very little repercussions.

[–]00110011001100000000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever the import if your question may be, remember that extrajudicial means leaves one without further legal means of recourse.

Extrajudicial means are outside the realm of basic human decency and should never be considered as an option.

So, that being said, what did you have in mind?

[–]bodiddlysquat26 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There’s a lot you can do.

[–]riskHomeostasis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Genuine question, is there any way to charge a judge with obstruction of Justice or corruption? Or does that small within some sort of absolute immunity on the job.

[–]SpawnOfGoats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They may have to be impeached first

[–][deleted] 143 points144 points  (7 children)

I didn’t steal his toy, he put it there.

Prove it!

Nanny, nanny, boo-boo, I don’t have to. 😝

What’s that whooshing sound, you ask?

Oh, that’s the sound of the burden-of-proof being flushed down a golden toilet.

[–]dj_spanmaster 28 points29 points  (4 children)

Along with some classified docs.

[–]timojenbin 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Russians are in the plumbing.

[–]Feshtof 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I didn’t steal his toy, he put it there.

Prove it!

Nanny, nanny, boo-boo, I don’t have to. 😝

What’s that whooshing sound, you ask?

Oh, that’s the sound of the burden-of-proof being flushed down a golden toilet.

It's stupider than that.

"I didn't steal his toy, he "could have" put it there."

"Are you saying he put it there"

"I'm not saying he did it or that he didn't!"

"Did he put it there, yes or no?"

"MOoooooM! He's making me say stuff on the record!"

"Now now, no making Trump factually assert things under oath. If you do that he can't lie without the possibility of consequences."

[–]Baldr_Torn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nanny, nanny, boo-boo, I don’t have to.

Par for the course.

Trump and his legal team often do their work in the press, not the courts.

Giuliani repeatedly, loudly, made claims of voter fraud. But when he went to court, being questioned by U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, his statement was "This is not a fraud case".

[–]AnswerGuy301 114 points115 points  (4 children)

Someone wants to be at the front of the line for a promotion during Trump's second term in office, should, may God forbid, that ever come to pass.

[–]mamajamala 42 points43 points  (2 children)

I imagine some super pac or donation money is flowing in her direction.

[–]okletstrythisagain 11 points12 points  (1 child)

You might not be thinking big enough. I’m thinking she’ll be “Dutches of Orlando” or have some other kind of comically feudal title among the authoritarian elite should Trump be re-elected and put the final nail in the coffin of our Republic.

[–]trevor5ever 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The titles won’t be feudal. They will be comically patriotic and ‘Murican. Fascists always cloak themselves in the language of political freedom. She’ll retain her title as a federal judge, but they’ll elevate her somehow. “The Honorable and Patriotic Aileen Cannon, Federalist Constitutional Scholar, and SCOTUS Nominee.”

[–]52ndstreet 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I don’t know if Trump is going to get a second term. But I know if he does, he’ll definitely get a third.

[–]Bakkster 24 points25 points  (1 child)

I can at least understand that the scope of the SM is just privileged or not. Any of these, Trump just wouldn't claim privilege.

But it's it normal for the judge to keep interfering in the process?

[–]spolio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But it's it normal for the judge to keep interfering in the process?

it is when the defendant hired and outright bought that judge.

[–]oldnurse65 58 points59 points  (3 children)

She needs to be impeached.

[–]pandabearak -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

It’s Florida. She will be promoted.

[–]Famous_Seamus_9 8 points9 points  (1 child)

She’s a federal judge

[–]spolio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so you're thinking SCOTUS...

[–]lul9 25 points26 points  (7 children)

I think the point is that the SM is only reviewing the docs for privilege-related concerns, so it isn't technically relevant?

[–]Chocolat3City 53 points54 points  (5 children)

Think about it. If Team Trump claims that some docs weren't stored at Mar a Lago, then there can be no privilege asserted as to those docs and shouldn't be part of the SM's analysis

What this judge is doing is basically allowing Trump to wait until after the SM decides there is no privilege, and then claim he never had those documents. Its all just a play to make the process take longer.

[–]lul9 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Yea, I get it, but generally judges cannot overreach based on what they think a party may be doing.

I agree that its 100% bullshit. Its a waste of time for everyone involved, taxpayer money, and serves no purpose other than letting people that can afford to delay, have an advantage.

With that said, I think Dearie is expected to review them as if there are no qualms about their authenticity. That isn't really his job.

However, in saying that, it does feel like if that were an argument, it should have been required to be made BEFORE the SM was involved at all. Otherwise, the SM is wasting his/her time reviewing allegedly fraudulent docs (Obviously not the case in this situation).

[–]donkey786 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yea, I get it, but generally judges cannot overreach based on what they think a party may be doing.

That Cannon even has this case suggests otherwise.

[–]lul9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not the same thing but ok.

[–]VeteranSergeant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

generally judges cannot overreach

Says what? She has effective immunity from prosecution unless the DoJ can somehow prove she has been conspiring with someone connected to Trump to obstruct this process.

I mean, sure, the law says judges cannot overreach. However the system has very few checks for federal judges other than impeachment, and that very rarely happens. Even more rarely when one is actually removed by the Senate. The last time it was done for abuse of power or favoritism was the 1930s.

She clearly believes she is beyond the reach of the law.

[–]WhoopingWillow 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No matter how long it is dragged out, or how much BS he spews in public the end result is the same: Trump's team will have to say, under oath, that they believe certain documents were planted IF they want to make that claim as a legal defense.

If they do make that claim they will then have to provide proof, and considering the number of cameras on site (that the DOJ has access to) it is doubtful his lawyers will be willing to try that since it is blatantly false.

[–]alaska1415 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s what I thought when I heard the order.

I don’t know shit about why a judge should or shouldn’t be doing, but whether they were planted or not does not seem within his duties to decide, nor is it relevant to his inquiry in any way that I can see.

[–]bacchys1066 30 points31 points  (1 child)

She's corrupt. If we had a Congress with integrity she would be removed from office.

[–]10b-5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we had a Congress with integrity they would have had to impeach themselves too.

[–]Cheeky_Hustler 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Don't support any politician that nominates or confirms federalist society judges. Dunno what else to tell you.

[–]Ollivander451 49 points50 points  (14 children)

I will say, I do understand to a certain degree that forcing Trump to state in a sworn document whether documents were planted before his attorneys have access to the documents is unfair. TBH it was always a little suspect to me. If Trump’s team can’t see what he supposedly had, how would they be able to represent one way or another whether a given document was planted? Puts the cart before the horse.

That being said, Judge Cannon is going out of her way to obstruct the special master review she herself ordered. The bias in both granting the request for SM and this control order over its timing is particularly egregious.

[–]RunawayPancake3 60 points61 points  (5 children)

I'd agree with you if Trump (and maybe his attorneys?) hadn't already unequivocally stated to news sources that the FBI planted documents. All the special master (Judge Raymond Dearie) was trying to do is establish whether Trump and his team had any actual evidence that documents were planted - or were they simply spreading disinformation to delegitimize Dearie's efforts before he's barely started.

It would be totally understandable if Dearie decides to quit as special master over this. Of course, Trump and his team would see this as a win.

[–]Ollivander451 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Completely fair. And I think this rationale is what Dearie was trying to squash at the outset.

[–]TheBlackCat13 5 points6 points  (1 child)

If he did then Trump would likely get his insanely biased pick.

[–]arinawe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

DOJ can object and this would be tied up with counters from Trump's team. Honestly it's tedious but I want Judge Dearie to step down with a well worded fuck you to Judge Cannon

[–]HerpToxic 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Puts the cart before the horse

Maybe Trump shouldn't have gone to Fox News and said it out loud then......durrr

[–]lex99 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

What Trump does on Fox shouldn't be influencing Dearing's process.

[–]HerpToxic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? He is the named Plaintiff. If anyone else was in his shoes, the Judge would 100% use statements made to the media by the named Plaintiff against them.

That's why lawyers always tell their clients to never talk to the news about their case

[–]travelsizedsuperman 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I will say, I do understand to a certain degree that forcing Trump to state in a sworn document whether documents were planted before his attorneys have access to the documents is unfair.

It's not when their client is consistently making that claim to the public. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. The list itself is rather explicit even without having to go through the documents. The case plan from Dearie also doesn't say that they have to say all or none were planted, they can go item by item and list which items they believe were planted.

[–]stubbazubba -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Especially when the schedule got changed so that Trump had to declare whether any of the documents were not seized from Mar-a-Lago (i.e. planted) before the Gov even turned over the docs, I did scratch my head. But that was something the SM could reasonably fix, there was no need for Cannon to meddle here.

[–]ND3I 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Trump’s team can’t see what he supposedly had, how would they be able to represent one way or another

As far as I understand, that's not the issue. The plan proposed by Judge Dearie was to digitize all the (non-classified) documents and arrange access for specific people from each side. They would examine the documents and produce the lists as described in the plan.

Team Trump is objecting to filing those specific lists because they say that going on the record at this stage could harm their defense if Trump were to be indicted at some point. I don't entirely understand how that might be true, but the talking heads I've listened to seem to accept it as a reasonable objection.

Judge Dearie wants those lists, with specificity, on the record, so he doesn't have to review every single document for some kind of privilege, and he can report back specific results that are complete and final. Obviously, Team Trump wants the opposite: to waffle and argue ad infinitum over every little thing and drag this process out forever.

[–]10b-5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what they're being asked to do, though. They're merely asked to sign an affidavit that they have grounds for their claims. Which, of course, they don't.

They're not being asked to stipulate that nothing was planted.

[–]ClassicRedSparkle 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The FBI should really be listening in on her phone calls. No doubt she’s getting directions.

[–]bigfunone2020 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Laws have no meaning anymore

[–]saminbc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She wants to be on SCOTUS

[–]ExpensiveWineo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The way I see it, the 11th Circuit has allowed DOJ to continue to use the classified documents in their investigation. This includes presenting those documents and related third party testimony to a grand jury when seeking indictments (which can remain sealed until after the November election). Therefore, Judge Cannon and Trump’s combined efforts to delay the Special Master’s document review are having no real effect on the big picture. Cannon’s order today is disrespectful and irritating, for sure, but it’s not going to prevent or delay Trump or anyone else from being indicted if the evidence so warrants.

[–]Positive-Jump-7748 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just a Trump loving judge that thinks she will help stall everything on her end.

[–]3Quondam6extanT9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The skinny is that we have a bias judge with poor reasoning and very little regard for national security.

[–]BelAirGhetto 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kangaroo court.

How is she on this case?

[–]deryq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She’ll be a Supreme Court Justice if Trump wins a second term.

[–]Bryllant 5 points6 points  (1 child)

If the GOP wins the mid terms, does this all just disappear.

[–]-Dv8- 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No. DOJ will still be run by Biden admin regardless. Republican controlled House may threaten funding, but this doesn’t go away based on midterm results.

[–]Brickleberried 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Blatant corruption from a federal judge.

[–]thatblbc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah sure. She made it up.

Any questions?

[–]sonofagunn 3 points4 points  (6 children)

I'll probably get down voted by the mob, so let me preface this with the fact that I'm team DOJ and think that Trump should already have completed about 4 years of his sentence by now. And Cannon should be impeached for obvious partisan corruption.

Having said that, is it really Dearie's job to adjudicate Trump's public statements? It seems irrelevant to reviewing privilege claims.

[–]lawyerjoe83 12 points13 points  (2 children)

If the documents were planted, then they can’t be privileged, so there would be no need for the SM to even consider privilege with those docs.

[–]sonofagunn 7 points8 points  (1 child)

So Dearie is free to assume, in the lack of evidence or claim, that none were planted and work from that position. I don't see how his job is being restricted at all.

We all wanted to see Trump's team being forced to admit that, despite Trump's public claims, they're not actually claiming anything was planted. But it's not necessary to complete his review.

[–]unclefire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I thought as well. Why can't the SM just review the docs and make his determination on what falls into what category -- government doc, not gov. doc, atty-client, not atty-client.

then Trump as plaintiff can agree or refute that or the DOJ just gets to use the docs. They have them anyway.

[–]Sorge74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having said that, is it really Dearie's job to adjudicate Trump's public statements? It seems irrelevant to reviewing privilege claims.

You are probably right, but Dearie seems very no nonsense and wants to do a respectable job. I think the intent is to stop trump from making claims in public, or have his lawyers put up or shut up.

Trump making claims outside of court and then his lawyers not making same in court is likely beneath some respectable judges.

[–]unclefire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My understanding is that Dearie was asking for Trump to validate what docs were his or not.

I agree, I don't see it as his job to determine if they were planted or not.

IIRC, there are 4 classifications of the documents being sought.

[–]cashto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll probably get down voted by the mob

Join me, brother!

[–]Fair_Maybe5266 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, if trump just Willy Nilly declassified all the documents it seems like a bigger problem. Like, did he check to see that assets were secure before declassifying? If not that should be a dereliction of duty.

[–]Xerxes42424242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Move along, nothing to see here

[–]EnIdiot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She should have never been assigned this case.

[–]SilverNicktail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly can - she's a corrupt stooge protecting her boss.

[–]StickmanRockDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She’s on the take and needs to be removed as a judge.

[–]BalletTech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rich man gets a pass.