Resolves YES if she remains the presiding judge until a final determination is made by either a jury verdict, judge dismisses charges with predjudice or declares a mistrial on all counts.
Related questions
@MartinRandall Don't know how I missed that. Nauta was arraigned yesterday, so no more delay over no lawyer problem.
@MartinRandall ??? No, I meant I've been to this market many times and never noticed the spelling of her name since I always hear it in my head phonetically
@NiallWeaver Indeed. Seems like a normal thing for pretrial motions to be handled by magistrate from what I read.
@BTE Yes, I don’t think it has any predictive value as to whether Cannon or another Article III judge will preside over other elements, and the MJ cannot preside over the trial itself.
I suspect this trial will proceed much faster than most people expect simply because there will be so many trial days to coordinate between judges, Trump might not actually be able to delay any of them substantially, especially since he has already burned all of his significant challenges to the documents case already following the search of Mar a Lago. If anything we are going to see the judiciary gang up on Trump and remind him that even if he is president he still has equals that can smack him down anytime they feel like it. All he gets to do is choose who makes him their bitch, they owe him nothing and are lifetime appointees. The judges overseeing these cases are the only people that really matter anymore. @NiallWeaver
@MartinRandall, @BTE In terms of flipping my opinion from one comment to the next, you two are like Locke and Demosthenes from Ender's Game, but in a good way. Given the other market I think this market should always be slightly lower probability than the other one (the Jim Carrey chance for Judge Cannon to get reassigned), so I will cautiously bet NO accordingly.
@BTE I knew this would happen but I thought the arraignment was not the trial.
Good question.
@MartinRandall Yeah that isn’t what I had in mind. I was thinking she would maybe recuse.
@BTE I don't think she will recuse, having read Popehat on some of the precedents. If she stays on the case and is sightly biased towards Trump it is good for her career. If she recuses then she never gets promoted.
@MartinRandall If you read the appellate court smack down of her rulings in this case previously it would be clear she has no promotion in her future. A promotion would require Senate approval. No chance.
@MartinRandall The appeals court destroyed her. Said she ignored 200 years of precedent. First time any judge had EVER interfered in a criminal investigation in federal history!! She has no future other than embarrassing herself.
@MartinRandall You can’t impeach a judge for being a bad judge. High crimes and misdemeanors only.