You mean the same Judge who granted Trump a partial injunction preventing the DOJ from reviewing the documents Trump was keeping at his residence only for an appeals court to strike it down writing: “[Trump] has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents, nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents.”
"Judge Cannon has, in the last week, issued two separate decisions. She’s keeping, for now, the trial date. So she’s sort of blocking any judge — eg. Georgia — she’s blocking the May trial date. She’s sitting there with that date,” he said. “But she said she’ll revisit on March 1st whether she’s gonna keep that date. But everything she’s doing with the classified documents and the schedule was pushing that way off. The government asked her yesterday to schedule a particular hearing, it’s a very routine hearing and she basically said, ‘denied.’ And so she’s pushed off all these internal dates of when things are due and when she’ll hold hearings.”
deleted by creator
There’s danger in those waters. But yes, something needs to be done.
deleted by creator
There’s room for being understanding - but these bad faith actors use our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt so that they can build plausible deniability for themselves, while never intending to operate in good faith.
Imo, three strikes and you’re a shill.
continually going for Trump
The phrasing makes it sound like she is acting against Trump, but I think what the person being quoted means to say is that she is acting to protect Trump.
Nah, I think it means she’s a goer. Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more. A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat. Know what I mean?
