"If access to opposing viewpoints is limited" is NOT the case here, as there are reams of legal opinions on Cannon's rulings. Thus, according to CDL's own post, the AI conclusions should be accurate.
Thanks for playing.
Maybe she was planning on writing a book. Now she can title it “How I Got Disbarred From Practicing Law”
FBI Director Patel
Carmen Lineberger allegedly emailed the confidential material to her own personal email, disguising them as dessert recipes to conceal them from record searches.
Lineberger is charged with four felony counts in the indictment.
This FBI will not hesitate to bring to account those who violated the trust of the American public in an investigation that should’ve never been brought to begin with.
The only question is, will two and a half more years be enough time to put all of these deep state scumbags behind bars?
they'll have plenty of time to go after little fish like this.
But your assumption that we won't have a Republican President in two and a half years is noted.
snakes on the planet are known to have the most potent poison. You should not judge danger by size, but by power and how it is wielded. With that said, I will agree that she is one of the larger US Attorneys, so her size MAY match her former power in the Justice Department.
The Trump puppet AGs (Blondie / Blanche) had / have the power to release the Special Counsel's report but, of course, they did not / will not do so. Congress has the power to subpoena the report but a Trump Congress will not do so. The next Congress may be able to compel the release of the report (along with the rest of the Trump-Epstein Files).
.
I need to read more info that what appears in two X posts. If the basic claims are true, she should be investigated and, possibly, prosecuted. I think she might be allowed to use a "but Trump!" defense, especially if the report has already been released by Congressional subpoena.
.
A reminder about the Ellsberg - Pentagon Papers case:
"Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, released the classified Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971. He initially faced 12 felony counts with a possible 115-year prison sentence, but all ****charges were dismissed during his trial due to gross government misconduct**** and illegal surveillance by the Nixon administration."
they'll have plenty of time to go after little fish like this.
But your assumption that we won't have a Republican President in two and a half years is noted.
If Trump has nothing to hide about the Trump-Epstein Files, he should order the release of the files.
If Trump has nothing to hide about gifts and payments he has received from donors and foreign agents, he should divulge them in detail.
If Trump has nothing to hide about his retention of classified gov docs and his attempts to obstruct gov retrieval of those docs, he should order his AG to release the report.
that SHE does not have presidential authority to reclassify documents. This is why Trump would have won HIS case and she will lose hers.
There is a process for declassifying documents that even the President must follow. He ignored it. Then, when told by the Library of Congress to return the documents, he refused.
Guilty as charged.
by the court. Let's see how this fat girl comes out. She emailed classified docs from the justice department to her personal email account. That shows intent to violate the law. If she is convicted, she will be disbarred and will never be a lawyer again. There was no finding that Trump violated the law, only a spurious allegation by disgraced prosecutor, Jack Smtih, but that doesn't stop you from crying, "But, Trump . . . ."
by his hand-picked judge who desperately wants to be nominated to the SCOTUS.
Most in the legal profession consider her to be a joke with a Junior Varsity legal background.
She was appointed to the bench while Trump was in his first term and approved by then-Democrat-controlled Senate at the time. The prosecutor is required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to choose one of two venues to file the case; the district where the defendant resides, or the district where the crime occurred. In this case, they are one and the same because both choices require the district where Mar-a-Lago is located.
You seem to ignore all of this in your claim that the judge presiding in this district was “hand-picked” by Trump. Got exaggeration?!!
She was too inexperienced to handle this case of this complexity and magnitude and should have recused herself. She has proven herself to be a biased and flawed jurist by endlessly delaying the case beyond the 2024 election. BTW the republicans controlled the Senate when she was confirmed on November, 12, 2020.
she was in the tank for Trump.
However, the judges in a district are assigned randomly in a rotation, but if either side objects to the random judge they drew, they can challenge the judge and the court will assign the next judge in the rotation. Jack Smith could have unilaterally bounced her as soon as she was assigned, but he didn't, so she stayed on the case. Since you are such an expert on judges' qualifications, perhaps you should kick yourself for not sharing your inside information about her with Jack so he could have objected to her assignment as judge. Do you do Monday morning quarterbacking in other fields, or just the law?
Why do you lie like you do? Rhetorical question. Smith could not have "unilaterally bounced her". That's not how the Federal judicial system operates. Yes, he could have filed a formal motion to recuse, but to be successful there must be concrete evidence of, for example, a conflict of interest not simply because she was an inexperienced jurist assigned to a complex case. Requests for recusal are usually not successful, even on appeal, unless there is very strong evidence presented to indicate the Judge is biased. Since recusal is unlikely what's left is a pissed off judge who can demonstrate her animosity against the prosecution in many subtle judicial ways.
CDL and others continue to lie and misrepresent and even deny established history.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2022)
"Donald J. Trump v. United States of America (case no. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON), was a lawsuit filed on August 22, 2022, by former U.S. president Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida. He sought the appointment of a special master to review materials seized on August 8, 2022, during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, a part of the investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents.
.
"Trump requested that the special master review the seized materials, some of which were classified, for potential attorney-client or executive privilege. The case was assigned to District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee. ... She ordered the DOJ to halt its review of all materials on September 5 and appointed Raymond J. Dearie, senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, as special master on September 15.
.
"On September 16, the DOJ appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 22, the appeals court granted the DOJ's request to restore investigators' access to the classified files that had been seized during the Mar-a-Lago search and block the special master from access to them. ..."
.
Ordinarily, there would be zero reason to assign a Special Master in this situation. Cannon had decided that Trump deserved special preferential treatment. And so began her attempt to assist Trump and his defense to delay and obstruct the prosecution.
.
Even Bill Barr criticized Cannon's decisions from the bench:
http://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/07/us/politics/aileen-cannon-judge-trump.html
.
"... On Monday, Judge Cannon granted Mr. Trump’s request to appoint an independent arbiter known as a special master to review materials seized last month from his private Florida club. The extraordinary and unusually broad decision, which could delay the criminal investigation into Mr. Trump, drew scrutiny from experts who questioned her legal reasoning and criticized some of the language in her opinion about what rights a former president is entitled to.
.
William P. Barr, who was attorney general under Mr. Trump, took exception to her ruling, saying that the judge did not adequately address a key issue in dispute: whether a former president may invoke executive privilege to keep the executive branch itself from reviewing documents while investigating a potential crime. He said the answer is no.
.
“The opinion, I think, was wrong,” Mr. Barr said on Fox News on Tuesday. “And I think the government should appeal it. It’s deeply flawed in a number of ways.” ..."
.
Legal experts from all sectors were critical of Cannon's flawed decisions.
.
http://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-request-special-master-raid-case-granted-part-by-us-court-filing-2022-09-05/
U.S. judge agrees to special master in Trump search case, delaying probe [Sep 2022]
.
"... Some legal experts on Monday called the judge's order deeply flawed. "This is not something courts do," said Jonathan Shaub, a former Justice Department attorney. He said it was odd for Cannon to block the Justice Department from reviewing the records at this stage in the investigation, before an indictment has even been returned.
"It's giving a whole lot of special treatment," Shaub said. Cannon in her ruling justified her actions by claiming that Trump faces the stigma of having had his home searched, and any future indictment based on the seizure of those records would cause "reputational harm." ..."
.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/09/donald-trump-aileen-cannon-doj-ruling-classified-documents
DOJ Gives Trump Judge an Opening to Take Back Her Absurd Special Master Ruling [Sep 2022]
As a reminder, Judge Aileen Cannon was nominated by Trump, and she made clear in her decision this week that she thinks he deserves special treatment.
.
"When Judge Aileen Cannon granted Donald Trump’s request for a special master to review the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI in August, blocking prosecutors from using those documents in their investigation until that review was complete, the legal community did not hold back in its assessment of the decision. “To any lawyer with serious federal criminal court experience who is being honest, this ruling is laughably bad, and the written justification is even flimsier,” Samuel Buell, a Duke University law professor, told The New York Times. Judge Cannon’s decision “was utterly lawless. She has disgraced her position as an Article III judge” ... "
.
"... Eleventh Circuit reverses entirety of Judge Cannon's ruling and terminates special master review. ...
"On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of DOJ. The appeals court's ruling ended the special master review, allowed the government to use all the documents in its investigation, and ***directed the lower court to dismiss Trump's lawsuit.*** The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Trump's position, although all three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and **two were appointed by Trump himself (Judge William H. Pryor Jr. was appointed by George W. Bush and Judges Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant were appointed by Trump).** The court ruled that Cannon lacked equitable jurisdiction to appoint a special master, that Cannon's decision did not meet the stringent standard for the judicial branch to intervene in ongoing investigations by the executive branch, and that *****the court would not make a special exception for former presidents.***** ..."
.
But Cannon had successfully delayed the DoJ's case for three months ... with many more delaying decisions (or NON-DECISIONS) to follow.
.
http://news.meaww.com/judge-aileen-cannon-accused-of-preferential-treatment-of-trump-in-classified-docs-case-internet-calls-it-precedent-setting-mess
'She's Trump all the way': Judge Aileen Cannon accused of preferential treatment of defense lawyers in classified docs case. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, has strongly objected to the suggestion that she is causing delays in the administration of justice. [May 2024]
.
"Judge Aileen Cannon is fielding criticism for the accumulation of unresolved legal matters in the classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump. However, the Trump appointee has strongly objected to the suggestion that she is causing delays in the administration of justice. ...
.
"There is growing frustration among prosecutors and legal experts regarding Judge Aileen Cannon's approach to granting full hearings on even the most implausible issues raised by Donald Trump's legal team, according to The New York Times. Subsequently, Judge Cannon has refrained from making decisive rulings on these matters, inadvertently contributing to the former president's strategy of prolonging the trial until after the 2024 election. ...
.
""Regardless of her motives, Judge Cannon has effectively imperiled the future of a criminal prosecution that once seemed the most straightforward of the four Mr. Trump is facing." ..."
Why do you lie like you do? Rhetorical question. Smith could not have "unilaterally bounced her". That's not how the Federal judicial system operates. ...
Very good wrap up of the past history of the case. But you didn’t address the Supreme Court ruling on presidential authority. Does that mean Judge Cannon was right all along?
He wasn't president when he kept the documents and refused to return them to the government.
made more substantive rulings against Trump than she did in favor of Trump, no doubt because the MSM also missed this with their focus on the special master ruling, procedural delays, and her ruling that JS was not lawfully appointed. But you are right - the SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling effectively ended the case because it opened the door for Trump to argue - as he did - that his reclassification of the documents while president as “personal” and his interpretation of the Presidential Records Act were “official acts” for which he had absolute immunity. Judge Cannon never reached this but I think I know how she would rule….
There is an 8000 character limit to a single post. I had to cut a lot to make just one post. The scathing legal analyses and criticisms of Cannon's behavior, rulings, and competence was from all quarters: left right up down NYPost NYTimes Op Eds Scholarly journals Blogs Etc. Etc Etc. ...
.
"Cannon made more substantive rulings against Trump than she did in favor of Trump ..." - Examples? Sources?
.
"... Trump to argue - as he did - that his reclassification of the documents while president ..." it has NEVER been established that Trump did any such thing. Kash Patel CLAIMED he saw Trump declassify documents but has refused to repeat that claim under oath. On record, Trump showed classified -- NOT DECLASSIFIED -- documents to visitors at his Bedminster Golf Club and said:
.
http://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio
Exclusive: CNN obtains the tape of Trump’s 2021 conversation about classified documents.
.
[You play the embedded audio or read the entire transcription.]
.
"... “This was done by the military and given to me,” Trump continues, before noting that the document remained classified.
“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.
“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.
.
The classified documents he showed his visitors had to do with Iran attack plans. Maybe Trump can blame the current Iran quagmire as being due to somebody leaking his attack plans. Gee, I wonder who that could be?
made more substantive rulings against Trump than she did in favor of Trump, no doubt because the MSM also missed this with their focus on the special master ruling, procedural delays, and her ruling that JS was not lawfully appointed. But you are right - the SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling effectively ended the case because it opened the door for Trump to argue - as he did - that his reclassification of the documents while president as “personal” and his interpretation of the Presidential Records Act were “official acts” for which he had absolute immunity. Judge Cannon never reached this but I think I know how she would rule….
You make a good attempt at a counterpoint to Marikod, but blaming an 8000 character limit on your failure to address the key point in this whole kerfuffle, the Supreme Court ruling on presidential authority, in your opening posts is really a stretch. But you do avoid falling into ad hominem attacks when cornered, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
on grounds of the Presidential Records Act; denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the Espionage Act counts on vagueness grounds; denied Trump’s motion to dismiss eight different other obstruction and false statement counts in the superseding indictment; and denied Trump’s motion to strike all specified portions of the superseding indictment except for allegations of an uncharged offense.
Is that enough for you? So she got the special master wrong and may have got the dismissal wrong but even that is debatable (see Justice Thomas and Lindsay Halligan LOL although she was a USA, not special counsel but I’ve never understood the difference as far as the Appointments Clause is concerned. On the substantive motions, Trump was the loser most of the times.
As to
... Trump to argue - as he did - that his reclassification of the documents while president ..." it has NEVER been established that Trump did any such thing
you are quite mistaken. It is a filing in the case Dude.
You can find all this on PACER.
singing the party line that she was biased FOR Trump. The court record shows otherwise.
If Cannon had made some of those decisions to favor Trump, she would have been reversed by the 11th Circuit and have provided solid grounds for her removal from the case.
on grounds of the Presidential Records Act; denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the Espionage Act counts on vagueness grounds; denied Trump’s motion to dismiss eight different other obstruction and false statement counts in the superseding indictment; and denied Trump’s motion to strike all specified portions of the superseding indictment except for allegations of an uncharged offense.
Is that enough for you? So she got the special master wrong and may have got the dismissal wrong but even that is debatable (see Justice Thomas and Lindsay Halligan LOL although she was a USA, not special counsel but I’ve never understood the difference as far as the Appointments Clause is concerned. On the substantive motions, Trump was the loser most of the times.
As to
... Trump to argue - as he did - that his reclassification of the documents while president ..." it has NEVER been established that Trump did any such thing
you are quite mistaken. It is a filing in the case Dude.
You can find all this on PACER.
.
Trump made many PUBLIC **claims** that he had declassified all documents in his possession related to the Mar-a-Lago documents case, but many legal experts have stated that this assertion lacks a basis in law.
thinking about it?
instead of whether Trump actually “mentally declassified” the documents and ordered staff to move them to Mar a Lago. Regardless of whether the Presidential Records Act permitted this (and Judge Cannon ruled against Trump on that one too), and regardless of whether the removal constituted a crime, the defense argued these were “official acts” for which Trump had immunity:
“President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal of Counts 1
through 32 on the basis of presidential immunity, as these charges stem directly from official acts
by President Trump while in office. Specifically, President Trump is immune from prosecution
on Counts 1 through 32 because the charges turn on his alleged decision to designate records as
personal under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) and to cause the records to be moved from
the White House to Mar-a-Lago. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, President Trump made this decision while he was still in office. The alleged decision was an official act, and as such is subject to presidential immunity.”
(Mr Todd Blanche).
Judge Cannon never reached this motion bc she dismissed the Superceding Indictment on procedural grounds under the Appointment Clause. All of the other favorable Trump rulings you mentioned were also procedural rulings. I trust you understand what a "procedural" ruling is. I don’t remember him winning any substantive motions but certainly if he did the denial of his many motions to dismiss counts in the indictment far exceeded any ones he won. And the Special Counsel also won many procedural rulings. Nor did she always grant Trump’s motions for a hearing. For example, she denied Trump’s motion for a Franks hearing.
All this is not my “opinion.” It is a matter of public record.
...against Trump than she did in favor of Trump..."
Do you have a link to back that up or did you reach into COEUR-DE-CHAPON's ass, pull some shit out, and fling it onto TER?
From AI Overview:
"U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made more rulings that favored Donald Trump than ruled against him, especially in her handling of his federal classified documents case...While she did rule against Trump's defense on a few minor procedural and scheduling disputes, the vast majority of her consequential rulings aligned with the former president's legal motions and requests."
FYI - "consequential" = "substantive"
as the scope of information available to it allows. If access to opposing viewpoints is limited, you can skew AI's analysis to a wrong conclusion. It's one of the basic tenants from the beginning of computerdom . . . . GIGO. The mere fact that you post a lot of AI results is why you are often wrong of out of context with the point of many posts. Looking for shortcuts with AI is a rabbit hole you should not go down.
"If access to opposing viewpoints is limited" is NOT the case here, as there are reams of legal opinions on Cannon's rulings. Thus, according to CDL's own post, the AI conclusions should be accurate.
Thanks for playing.
several weeks ago and witnesses a judge have a melt-down over attorneys using AI to write their motion briefs. He said the cases are not on point and the arguments are spurious. I have heard of other instances of judges cautioning attorneys about relying on AI for their research. It's becoming a real problem, so it doesn't matter what your claims are, if I was an attorney, I would not trust AI for accuracy. That's the point these judges are making, and I have seen enough to understand that AI is mostly based on keyword recognition and NOT intelligent thinking and analysis like a human can do. If these attorneys continue to defy the judges' warnings about AI use, they will find themselves on a losing streak.
But your lame attempt to refute the post above for relying on AI did not (and still DOES NOT) withstand scrutiny. By belatedly trying to require a court-room level of perfection on AI you are simply admitting your earlier attempt to rebut failed miserably.
Try again.
"why" and the last one told you "how" I know. Go sit in a courtroom during the morning motion calendar and you are likely to see some young attorneys getting dressed down by the court over use of AI for both research and writing.
The specific example is AI's description of Cannon's rulings and, despite all your vaporings, you have done nothing to show that the AI summary missed the mark. But keep on moving those goalposts.
LOL.... wrong. AI also takes into account OPINION by people. Which can slant its outcome.
AI is being proven not to be the end all in information. It gets it wrong or can be slanted.
"tenants"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many times do I have to tell you righties - stay in your lane! Don't try to exceed your limited vocabulary.
"tenants" - SMH at how fucking stupid you are.
who is not intelligent enough to respond to the substance of my post would make a big deal out of a spelling error. I let you get away with them because I would rather engage about your worthless responses. Thanks for showing you are not able to go toe to toe with me on the substance. I acknowledge the spelling error since that seems to amuse you so much. Your mental limitations are noted for the future.
I thought BigP had learned his lesson and backed off challenging Marikod’s legal acumen. Here, he asks AI a leading question and comes up with the answer he wanted. Marikod went to the facts and settled the point in question.
All this is not my “opinion.” It is a matter of public record.
He seems to be focusing on spelling errors now because the conversation has moved above his comprehension level.
Lineberger retired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in December, 2025 so she wasn't "Practicing Law."
Lineberger was not detained nor did she have to post bond. An indictment is not evidence of guilt. Lineberger is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
ChicKenShit already has her convicted and "disbarred." Apparently, coCKSucker175 has never heard of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Or else he thinks those Amendments shouldn't apply to people accused by Trump's DOJ.
Either way, he's partisan hack and a fucking moron.
BigPapaDunce obviously doesn’t know how to read sarcasm.
like fat girls. Kirsten O'Donnell makes you drool, you said so yourself on the LA board, then took it down.
Every time you look up snippets of the law to try to argue against someone else, you end up pissing on your shoe.