If she dismisses because it has to be filed in DC…they can just file in DC, get a more favorable judge, and have a great reason for why the court must reject Trump’s inevitable change of venue request.
Florida was only picked to avoid change-of-venue requests. It’s not like there is nowhere to legally charge this case.
> If she dismisses because it has to be filed in DC…they can just file in DC, get a more favorable judge, and have a great reason for why the court must reject Trump’s inevitable change of venue request.
But that would virtually guarantee that the case would be pushed out until 2025 at the earliest, which is exactly what Trump wants. He wants to draw this out until he either gets re-elected and just has the cases dismissed, or he just dies without having ever been found guilty. And considering he’s 77 years old and thinks the four basic food groups are McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and Dunkin Donuts, the odds of him getting what he wants are pretty heavily in his favor and only increase with every frivilous delay tactic.
If she dismisses with prejudice that means the case cannot be re-filed. I’m not sure if that’s something she’s able to do in this case, but that would effectively kill the case completely.
Edit: I am by no means a… law… talking… guy, so it’s good to hear from multiple replies that this is most likely not an out for Tr(eason)ump.
You can’t dismiss with prejudice because of a simple jurisdictional issue like that. “You should have filed it somewhere else, but now you can’t file it anywhere”. Prejudice means that the case has no merit and saying you should have filed it somewhere else indicates it is possibly meritorious.
I don’t think the appeals court will let that stand.
Yeah, dismissing with prejudice would get reversed immediately.
If she has the authority to do so, there’s nothing that an appeals court can do about it. Once a case is dismissed, that’s the end of it.
You can appeal a dismissal just like any other final judgement.
Even if she did it wouldn’t stick on appeal and it would only affect the new charges. The original indictment was from a grand jury in Miami.
Why do I see this as a setup for jusification for dismissing the entire thing?
Because they’re guilty and their only defense is to obstruct of justice.
You’re not alone. That was the first thing I thought. She’s trying to find a way to dismiss the case.
My thought was Cannon wants out because trump just asked her to do something very illegal.
Maybe made one of those amazingly perfect phone calls, and this would pass the buck.
Naw. You’re probably spot on
I don’t think it’s about dismissal, although that tool is on the table. It’a about delay. It’s in Trump’s best interest for this trial to take as long as possible, and she is finding any excuse to deliver.
deleted by creator
Because it may be. She’s already shown disturbing noblesse oblige towards Trump. This would fit into that MO.
Just fyi, noblesse oblige is the idea that people in a position of privilege are responsible to some degree for taking care of those who are less fortunate. Fealty is a vassals sworn loyalty to someone in a higher position.
Fair point. I was thinking of “noblesse oblige” as “moral obligation of those of… powerful social position… to act with… generosity” whether warranted or not. But fealty works in this case as well.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Judge Aileen Cannon is asking the Justice Department and Donald Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta to weigh in on the legality of special counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing grand jury activity in Washington, DC, which relates to the obstruction portion of the Mar-a-Lago documents case before her in Florida.
In an order Monday, Cannon said Nauta’s lawyers “shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district” by August 17.
The special counsel previously told Cannon that “the grand jury in this district [in Florida] and a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity,” which resulted in the latest group of criminal charges before her against Trump, Nauta and a third defendant, Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira.
The Justice Department previously flagged to Cannon the possibility of a conflict of interest because Nauta’s lawyer Stanley Woodward has represented others who are likely to be witnesses against him and Trump at trial.
Woodward’s representation of Trump IT employee and witness Yuscil Taveras was moved to another lawyer after a recent proceeding before the chief federal judge in Washington, CNN has confirmed.
Trump now faces 40 felony counts, alleging he illegally retained national defense information and that he concealed documents in violation of witness-tampering laws in the Justice Department’s probe into the materials.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
