Judge Aileen Cannon’s arduous oversight of the Mar-a-Lago documents case is under scrutiny after she devoted three days this week to exploring former President Trump’s remote motions.
Cannon weighed in on the Trump team’s arguments questioning the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and funding for his office, while also taking the highly unusual step of inviting outside groups to his Fort Pierce courtroom to weigh in on the matter. .
Your long consideration comes after reporting from The New York Times that two of Cannon’s judicial colleagues encouraged her to drop the case — including one who was concerned about the optics after one of Cannon’s actions was criticized by a higher court.
There is no trial date set in the case; Cannon suspended the start date indefinitely while arguing that he should carefully weigh a stack of pretrial motions from Trump asking him to drop the lawsuit.
Lawyers typically avoid overt criticism of a judge, but that dynamic has changed as motions have mounted in the Trump documents case.
Lawyers called Cannon’s delays unusual and problematic, although criticism from the left was more scathing. Some asked whether inexperience, incompetence or even prejudice could be affecting the handling of the case.
“There is nothing – nothing – about the way she handled the case that is normal, that is usual, and that makes any sense – except that she is so inexperienced or, secondly, that she is just not confident, or in third, that she is so biased toward Trump,” Nancy Gertner, a retired federal district court judge appointed by President Clinton, told The Hill.
“By not setting a trial date, by not deciding the motions, she is simply delaying the case, and that is clearly in Trump’s interests.”
A lawyer who previously defended Trump also criticized Cannon and said some of his actions are aiding the former president’s desire for a delay.
“Decisions are not coming fast enough. She’s asking a lot of other people to come forward and give their opinions,” Michael van der Veen, who defended Trump during his second impeachment, said during an appearance on CNN.
While he called her a “smart lady,” he emphasized the need for “timely” decisions, adding that by not doing so in this case, “he is really playing into the hands of the defense.”
During three days of hearings this week, Cannon at times chided prosecutors. But she was also deeply skeptical of an attempt by Trump’s lawyers to suppress evidence gathered during the FBI search of her Mar-a-Lago home.
Still, this scrutiny of Trump’s legal team occurred in a context in which Cannon repeatedly agreed to hear defense arguments that outside observers say many judges would have addressed more quickly.
“There will be no trial in this case until after the election, thus opening the way to a 50 percent chance – roughly speaking – that the defendant in this case will be in a position to pardon himself or to direct that the case against him be dismissed,” he said. Jeff Robbins, a former federal prosecutor who is now in private practice, told The Hill. Robbins previously worked as deputy chief counsel to Democratic senators on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
“Every delay delays all of this, and the Trump team has given him almost unlimited opportunities to not act or delay things. And instead of taking the judicial bull by the horns and firmly setting timelines, immediate timelines, as the vast majority of other federal judges would do, certainly in a case like this, she dragged her feet.”
Cannon’s handling of the case has raised eyebrows since before Trump was indicted, when she appointed a special master to review evidence collected at Mar-a-Lago. It was sharply reversed by a panel of three judges, all Republican appointees, including two by Trump.
It was this incident that reportedly led Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga, appointed by George W. Bush, to suggest that Cannon hand over the case as soon as the charges reached her.
Because she is tied to the case, Cannon has resisted the practice of allowing a magistrate judge to weigh in on some of the case’s pretrial motions, something often done by district court judges to free up their attention. Not doing so also gives you more control over the case.
She also scheduled numerous hearings to weigh in on issues that other judges would likely decide based on petitions already filed — something other judges said they would likely decide “on the papers.” Judges can also rule from the bench after a hearing, but Cannon has so far refused to do so, opting for the longer route of writing opinions.
Giving this level of serious consideration to motions that are unlikely to succeed, Gertner said, could be a sign of bias.
“An inexperienced judge would not accept arguments that have not been successful elsewhere,” she said.
“A young and inexperienced judge would normally defer, as he should, to cases where precedent points overwhelmingly in one direction. You don’t stick your neck out to decide new principles or overturn precedents. So, given the fact, for example, that there are overwhelming precedents supporting Jack Smith’s nomination, the notion that she is dignifying Trump’s arguments by holding hearings is already disturbing.”
Shira Scheindlin, also a retired federal district court judge appointed by Clinton, said she does not attribute Cannon’s handling of the case to bias but rather to “a combination of inexperience and lack of self-confidence.”
She noted that the details of Smith’s appointment could be interesting to a former appellate lawyer like Cannon, who often likes to get in the weeds.
“So there’s a little hook here that’s interesting and caught her attention, and she kept the audience. I don’t think that’s so terrible, but what is terrible is not coming to a decision more quickly,” Scheindlin said.
Cannon defended his pace in the case.
“I can assure you that behind the scenes there is a lot of judicial work going on,” she said at a hearing in March.
“So while it may not appear on the surface that anything is happening, there is a lot of work being done.”
Cannon did not speak after either hearing, leaving it unclear when she will speak at them.
During Monday’s hearing, Cannon at one point asked detailed questions about the special counsel’s funding, at times appearing to surprise prosecutors by the extent to which he sought more granular details.
And in a separate hearing to consider whether Trump’s pretrial release conditions preclude statements he made suggesting the Justice Department gave the green light to assassinate him, Cannon again clashed with prosecutors.
As prosecutor David Harbach attempted to list reasons why restrictions on Trump’s speech were consistent with the First Amendment, he was interrupted by Cannon, with the prosecutor at one point exasperatedly noting, “So far, I’ve come up with one reason.”
Cannon responded that she didn’t like his tone, which prompted Harbach to later apologize.
Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar, defended Cannon this week, noting that Cannon ruled against Trump when he asked her to drop obstruction-related charges in the indictment.
“In reality, the ‘loose cannon’ spin is entirely disconnected from his actual decisions,” Turley wrote in an op-ed in the New York Post Office.
“She ruled for and against both parties on important issues. This includes rejecting key motions filed by Trump’s team and, more recently, challenging Trump’s counsel on allegations that the special counsel is part of a ‘parallel government.'”
The limited decisions, however, are just a fraction of those still before Cannon.
“Whether the delay is because, as some have speculated, she is quite insecure and inexperienced and doesn’t know how to control her score, or [if] it’s because a part of her feels like she’s inclined to let go of that obstacle, and whether that was helpful to the person who nominated her, that’s not such a bad thing — that’s unknown,” Robbins said.
“Either or the other or both are true.”
The Associated Press contributed.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
