Cannon donated to Ron Desantis' campaign. Whether they donated or not doesn't affect their bias.
Trump conviction
- Thread starter TulsaRulzOSUdrools
- Start date
the NY judge donated to Biden, his wife and daughter are Democrat party activists. If that doesn't spell CONFLICT, .....
Last edited:
So.
I guess Cannon's husband could have been like Clarence Thomas' wife Ginni, but wasn't. Donating to, or being an activist is just a degree of involvement. Neither one says how strong your feelings are. I don't hear you complaining when Judge Thomas doesn't recuse himself from cases that his wife protests about, and that's just as serious.
You have it on both sides of the aisle. You just want to complain about it, when it affects politicians that are in the Republican party negatively, and ignore it when it affects republicans positively or democrats negatively. Most politicians including judges are members of one of the two major parties. Just because they don't all demonstrably show their support doesn't mean they don't have it.
You can see Cannon's bias in her judgements, and that is all that is required. Just because she doesn't win a pissing contest on whose relatives are bigger activists or who donates the biggest amount of money, doesn't change her bias. It does not show a greater conflict of interest either. If it did then it would be against regulations.
Cannon never donated to either political party during her time as a judge. Donating to a political party and then preceding over a criminal trial of the head of the opposition party is simply bad optics and a clear reason why sitting judges can’t donate to political parties as it gives the impression of bias. In fact such a donation is a direct violation of the Code of Judical Conduct for that very reason.
both sides come with baggage, but the NY judge was the extreme, and some of his rulings reflected it.
Making a donation does not make you complicit. Not making a donation does make you impartial.
For instance I never donated to Biden… but you would probably say that I’m not impartial.
Making a donation shows favoritism/bias to a political party or candidate. Which is why sitting Judges are ethically forbidden to do the same. The code of conduct is there for a reason.
Splitting hairs when one donated to a campaign, and the others relatives donated time and money to a party. Both did so to follow the law. I want to see a difference in Braggs relatives and Clarence Thomas' relatives. Any of those donations wouldn't have made a difference in bias, whether it was Cannon, Bragg's relatives, or Thomas' relatives. At least Bragg had to fight the defense. Cannon only has a higher judge's overrule to contend with, which is much less direct, and often harder to instate. Bragg didn't donate to a party either, as he was following the law. That really doesn't say much either.
My apologies, I was going back and forth between arguments from two posters and several things at home. I mixed up Bragg & Merchan, as far as which one donated to the democratic party, and which one had the daughter involved in activist democratic work. Just replace Bragg with Merchan, and ignore the sentence about Bragg and his duties.
Merchan donated $15 to Biden, and $20 directly to Act Blue. Yes he broke the law, and so did 12 other judges, including Cannon. I just realized you are not supposed to donate to campaigns or parties, either one. So they both broke the law. It showed bias, but bias we already know is there, by them being members of their respective parties. Neither one should have done it. But neither one is more or less at fault/guilty for it. If you are going to say Merchan was more guilty of it because he donated $20 bucks to the democratic party and $15 to Biden as compared to her getting appointed by Trump, and donating $150 to DeSantis, once again you are splitting hairs.
I can't believe either one did it. You'd think they would realize that a small donation like they made is not worth getting busted, for making a donation.
Merchan's judicial rulings were still more fair than Cannons. He was very measured in his rulings about gag orders, despite the fact that his daughter was one of the people being mentioned. Trump even had an attorney, Tacopina (around the time the ruling was made that there was no reason for recusal) that said 'Judge Merchan showed no signs of bias, and had a reputation as a very fair judge.' Cannon not so much.
It’s really absurd listening to Democrats complain about biased or compromised judges after nearly 100 years of the same behavior from them. Roosevelt openly talked about it. It wasn’t just strategy for him, it was doctrine.
My personal favorite is when some Democrat administration throws out some absurd policy change they obviously know is a substitute for legislation that could never pass, breaking the separation of powers, for cash up front to their campaign, then some activist organization filled with their ex-appointees “sues” the administration to stop it in a district that only has “former” judges of their party, preferably appointed by the current administration, then they start charging $1500 an hour to litigate. After the meter has run to $1 million or so, paid by you and me, that they then can launder into advocacy and sometimes straight up campaign donations, the judge signs off on a nation wide settlement obviously outside their jurisdiction. Which of course permits the court to monitor the situation nationwide and ensures that the next administration can’t change the policy and a judge employed employee(s) (usually former Democrats) is embedded in the agency to maintain the status quo.
Then they all go out and socialize together at the end of the day. Intermarry. Send their kids to the same schools. Hire each other. Etc.
We have federal programs under this type of extra judicial supervision going on uninterrupted as far back as the 1960’s right now. Federal judges running federal agencies. And no way to undo it or stop it.
It’s a major driving factor in the problems you see on the border. If you wonder why the government doesn’t make changes on the border that make sense to Main Street voters, both Republican and Democrat, this is usually the reason. There’s a legal settlement indefinitely pending approval or subject to continued monitoring by some federal judge that was a Democrat activist for 40 years, her husband is employed by an activist organization, her daughter is a “filmmaker” for another, her son teaches at some ultra left wing school, etc. Legal bribery.
My personal favorite is when some Democrat administration throws out some absurd policy change they obviously know is a substitute for legislation that could never pass, breaking the separation of powers, for cash up front to their campaign, then some activist organization filled with their ex-appointees “sues” the administration to stop it in a district that only has “former” judges of their party, preferably appointed by the current administration, then they start charging $1500 an hour to litigate. After the meter has run to $1 million or so, paid by you and me, that they then can launder into advocacy and sometimes straight up campaign donations, the judge signs off on a nation wide settlement obviously outside their jurisdiction. Which of course permits the court to monitor the situation nationwide and ensures that the next administration can’t change the policy and a judge employed employee(s) (usually former Democrats) is embedded in the agency to maintain the status quo.
Then they all go out and socialize together at the end of the day. Intermarry. Send their kids to the same schools. Hire each other. Etc.
We have federal programs under this type of extra judicial supervision going on uninterrupted as far back as the 1960’s right now. Federal judges running federal agencies. And no way to undo it or stop it.
It’s a major driving factor in the problems you see on the border. If you wonder why the government doesn’t make changes on the border that make sense to Main Street voters, both Republican and Democrat, this is usually the reason. There’s a legal settlement indefinitely pending approval or subject to continued monitoring by some federal judge that was a Democrat activist for 40 years, her husband is employed by an activist organization, her daughter is a “filmmaker” for another, her son teaches at some ultra left wing school, etc. Legal bribery.
Cannon donated a small amount of money to a gubernatorial campaign 2 years before she was nominated to the bench. She was a federal prosecutor at the time and a well respected one. She wasn’t looking to join a future administration. The donation was not made to an incumbent, the candidate trailed in the polls at the time, and it appears the “donation” was an in kind payment for food and drink. She probably went to go hear him speak at a dinner. And almost 5 years before that candidate sought national office.
Anyone on either side suggesting that’s disqualifying is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Just exactly how did Cannon break the law donating to a state campaign years before she took the bench?
Last edited:
I’m actually willing to forgive Merchan’s donation to Act Blue, which is an organization created by former Democratic Party campaign operatives to push the limits of soliciting money for soft money donations. For years TU had a button on their webpage that stated if you clicked on it, it would take you to a website where you could donate to Black Lives Matter. It was really Act Blue. Millions of people have donated to Act Blue and didn’t know who they were giving their money to or what would be done with it.
My mistake. I usually check myself because I can't remember two weeks later, what I read two weeks ago. It said she donated to his campaign, not specifying gubernatorial or presidential. It was something that was dated more recently, and I stupidly assumed it was the Presidential, because of the date.
No harm no foul. Their machine puts that stuff out intentionally to confuse you and other high functioning well informed voters who don’t have the time to fact check every claim. Then they turn around and claim Trump uses the media to manipulate lower cognitive voters.
The only thing that's difficult to buy on that is it's dictated to be $15 specifically for Biden. You would think he had to mark that. Maybe not though.
Again not a big deal without more facts.
Did he give it through the campaign website? While on the bench? Yeah. A problem. Both for his ethics and Trump’s right to a fair trial.
Did he go to the same legal aid society meeting in the same building with the same people for two decades, always turning down the offer of a free lunch by scrupulously paying for his meal, then one day he doesn’t read the fine print and because the speaker is with the Biden campaign the ticket cost is a donation to the campaign and he didn’t catch it? A problem may be not innocent, but forgivable. The problem is once that’s brought to your attention, you step down so the system works properly. You don’t stubbornly insist you can sit impartially. We really need more people like Eisenhower in government. He made mistakes. Had failings and lapses in judgment but he understood selfless sacrifice for greater good and was always concerned with institutions running the way they should.
Did he give it through the campaign website? While on the bench? Yeah. A problem. Both for his ethics and Trump’s right to a fair trial.
Did he go to the same legal aid society meeting in the same building with the same people for two decades, always turning down the offer of a free lunch by scrupulously paying for his meal, then one day he doesn’t read the fine print and because the speaker is with the Biden campaign the ticket cost is a donation to the campaign and he didn’t catch it? A problem may be not innocent, but forgivable. The problem is once that’s brought to your attention, you step down so the system works properly. You don’t stubbornly insist you can sit impartially. We really need more people like Eisenhower in government. He made mistakes. Had failings and lapses in judgment but he understood selfless sacrifice for greater good and was always concerned with institutions running the way they should.
Personally, I would rather the judges political leanings be put out in the open so if he were to act especially prejudicially during the trial I could point to them. The alternative is to have a judge who could be a person who silently loathes Trump, but we would have no explanation for impartial activity during the trial. (Kind of like the problem we have now with the conservatives on the Supreme Court)
That all being said, I think good judges are able to place their moral and ethical ideas about upholding justice in front of their political leanings. (Which is why I think Cannon is a stinking pile of garbage, because she is not doing that.)
I do not recall any cases of significant or severe directives from Merchan that dealt with Trump or his councils unfairly. In fact I thought he showed more leniency and respect for Trump's former office than many Democrats would have given Trump's antics.
That all being said, I think good judges are able to place their moral and ethical ideas about upholding justice in front of their political leanings. (Which is why I think Cannon is a stinking pile of garbage, because she is not doing that.)
I do not recall any cases of significant or severe directives from Merchan that dealt with Trump or his councils unfairly. In fact I thought he showed more leniency and respect for Trump's former office than many Democrats would have given Trump's antics.
Never saw a question addressed to me? Please restate. Maybe I was trying to figure out how I missed the Capitol burning down and overlooked the question.
There is the question in the middle of the post in bold.
Since I’ve clearly stated that I won’t be supporting or voting for Trump in November the question as posed did not appear to be directed toward me. Appears at this point I will be supporting a lifelong Democrat as I see no better alternatives and believe a viable third party is desperately needed in this country as both the Pubs and Dems have failed the people they claim to represent
Question as posed is problematic on its face anyway as it is not based on facts.
Do you mean you are going to vote Kennedy? Not that it matters, cuz we know who the state of Oklahoma's delegates will be going towards. I would have voted for Manchin if he ran, even though he is not an ideal candidate, he would have been a better choice than Biden.
I don't think he meant the burn down statement quite literally. It was the question he repeatedly asked to any republican, and I figured that was the only logical one he was asking you personally, in his last reference to it, directed at you specifically.
O
Yes. Unless I better option comes along between now and November. I can’t remember when I was this disappointed in our two major political parties. Agree with Manchin. Maybe next time around for him.
I agree this country is in desperate need of 4 parties. I don't think people think in elections. As much as I think Kennedy is full of poop, he is refreshing for people to at least make think. We need that badly instead of just marking down your ballot based on a R or D. There is so much more nuance to politics than is made out to be. Marjorie Taylor Greene would be off our televisions if we had more parties.
It's odd. Why was Nancy Pelosi responsible for Jan 6? Did she call 40,000 people to the steps of the capitol? Did she say the election was stolen? Did she get her media entities to encourage them to come to DC?
How in the hell do you people twist yourselves into this stuff? It is just friggin wild to me. It wasn't Trump. It was Nancy! What are you all on? Do you realize how friggin ridiculous that sounds?
These people don't go to DC without trump. Period full stop.
But in regards to Kennedy. Wow. I hate the the anti-vax crowd. He has been confronted about this and looked like a fool. I didn't realize this went on.
If you had four parties extremists like Greene and Cornell West would be on your TV more, but perhaps have less influence.
Who puts Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge of anything ? No one.
The GOP and dems finally stomped her out when she called to oust Mike Johnson. Now she is just a pure circus animal.
Curious how the parties would shake out. Would you have reasonable people or wackos like Green and The Squad?
Personally, I think people would start talking about issues more and listening to nuance. Now, it is just parody, and politicians actually think we care about talking about going after Disney, porn in the classroom or think everything is racism.
It is clown shoes of the highest order. Then they go cut funding for stormwater when Miami floods every week or pay national consulting firms to get themselves on Fox News or give Holland Hall and Cascia Hall tax cuts in the name of "school choice"
Part of the problem is local journalism has been destroyed, so no one reads their local paper, and the staffs at TV stations have been decimated, but I digress again. The news has been nationalized, so our people running for office locally run on who can deepthroat Trump the best.
