Left-Wing Press in Full Meltdown Mode Over Who Judge Is in Trump Classified Docs Case
What was that? Did you hear it? That noise —
Was it another sonic boom over Washington? The cry of the hero being tortured in “The Princess Bride?” The Yellowstone supervolcano getting ready to let loose to take out half the country?
Or was it the wail of media leftists over a snag in the use of the judicial system to stop Donald Trump?
The snag is U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, in whose courtroom the classified document case against the former president will land.
Say it ain’t so, cry the leftwing media. And Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern wasted no time taking direct aim at Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in April 2020.
“This is excellent news for Trump and exceedingly bad news for special counsel Jack Smith,” Stern wrote Friday. “Cannon’s total lack of principle, combined with her evident incapacity to experience shame, renders her a uniquely favorable jurist for the former president.
“Indeed, if she maintains her grasp on this case, it is nearly impossible to envision Smith securing a conviction in her courtroom.”
Whew, Mr. Stern. Tell us what you really think.
In addition to accusing Cannon of lacking principles, he said her involvement in an earlier case related to last year’s FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida was the result of the Trump team “judge shopping” to get a friendly venue.
In September 2022, the judge ruled for the former president in calling a halt to the Department of Justice review of FBI-seized documents until a special master could examine the classified materials that were mixed with Trump’s tax and medical papers.
At that time, Stern said, Cannon “leaped at the opportunity to the man who’d appointed her and, perhaps, audition for a Supreme Court seat.”
Yeah, right. When Trump appointed the former federal prosecutor, then 39, she had just the minimum 12 years of legal experience to be considered qualified as a federal judge, according to the Miami Herald.
A rookie like that is not going to be angling to be on the Supreme Court.
Stern gleefully noted that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Cannon’s rulings in the Mar-a-Lago case despite that court having “two Trump appointees and the ultraconservative William Pryor.”
So, in what he described as Cannon’s “courtroom of chaos,” if she hears the Trump classified document case she will have plenty of “opportunities for sabotage.”
She can pack Trump supporters on the jury, keep out evidence hurtful to Trump, jettison prosecution witnesses, bend her rulings for the defense instead of the prosecution, or just ignore the jury and rule for an acquittal, according to Stern.
Worse, although Stern didn’t say this, the U.K.’s Guardian noted that the Columbia-born Cannon is (should I whisper?) — a Republican!
The horror!
Eric Lutz shared Stern’s sentiments Monday in Vanity Fair.
“Cannon, who was appointed by Trump in 2020 and confirmed after his election loss to Joe Biden, should step aside, for the sake of public confidence in the system,” Lutz said.
Yahoo News senior editor
“Trump’s critics groaned when they learned that Judge Aileen Cannon was listed on the summons for Trump’s Tuesday appearance to face charges in federal court.”
He claimed the judge “made controversial rulings in Trump’s favor during the investigation into his personal possession of classified government documents.”
Media leftists aren’t the only ones criticizing Cannon.
Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder said on MSNBC, “I don’t have confidence in her abilities to be fair or to be seen as fair.”
Meanwhile, Michael Bromwich, DOJ inspector general in the Clinton administration, tweeted, “This is bad news for everyone except Trump. For a case as important as this one, it’s critical to have a judge who is experienced, smart, and impartial. Judge Cannon fails on each of these dimensions. If she has any self-awareness, she should recuse herself.”
This is bad news for everyone except Trump. For a case as important as this one, it’s critical to have a judge who is experienced, smart, and impartial. Judge Cannon fails on each of these dimensions. If she has any self-awareness, she should recuse herself. https://t.co/1Hvat8AsFN
— Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) June 10, 2023
NBC News, not exactly a friend to Republicans — judicial or otherwise — did quote Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at the New York University School of Law, as saying a trial of Trump presided by Cannon will be fair.
But Gillers cautioned that the former president’s claims of political persecution could compromise public trust in the judicial system, the FBI and the Justice Department.
Um, yeah. We don’t want any mistrust of the courts, FBI and Justice Department, do we?
But to continue …
“This will be the most consequential and most watched prosecution in American history,” Gillers said. “Will enough of the public accept the verdict, whatever it is? Or will they see any result as political? Answers to those questions are as important as the verdict.”
Odd to see liberals speaking this way. This has come to be a way of life for conservative observations of the justice system.
Of course, we know the reason for the criticism of Cannon. She will not bow to Democrats. And there’s that Republican thing. And the Trump appointment.
Cannon’s tenure on the federal bench has been short, but some aspects of her ability might be reflected in an assessment of her at the time of her 2020 confirmation by the Senate.
“I think she’s a well-qualified, mainstream nominee,” said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who tracks nominations to federal courts, according to the Herald. “Assistant U.S. attorneys know their way around the courtroom. Generally, the U.S. Senate looks favorably on those kind of nominees.
“There have been a lot of party-line [Senate] votes. Her vote was pretty strong given the current state of acrimony.”
Her confirmation vote was 56-21, with 23 lame-duck post-election senators not voting.
And so it goes.
If Cannon is bothered by the criticism, she might want to consult with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He’s endured this kind of thing for decades.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
