From crooked judges who hand victories to those who appoint them to office, to corrupt bar prosecutors who are unable to protect the public from crooked lawyers, to sheriffs and police who declare themselves above the law, to congressional members who refuse to obey the laws they themselves enact, the nation is under attack. The courts have become a theater in which absurd results and outrageous consequences are routinely announced as normal. Here we consider and dismember these routine outrages that threaten to completely overwhelm the common, reasonable understanding of right and wrong.
Trump judge [Judge Aileen Cannon] in docs case makes misguided argument curiously similar to Fox News guest: Weissmann by Alex Wagner MSNBC Aug 8, 2023 #msnbc #trump #DOJ
Andrew Weissmann, former federal prosecutor, talks with Alex Wagner about the remarkably ill-informed challenge by Judge Aileen Cannon of Justice Department procedure in the Donald Trump classified documents case, and its curious similarity to an identical argument made by a former Trump attorney on Fox News the previous day.
Transcript
[ALEX WAGNER] IF YOU ARE WATCHING FOX NEWS ON SUNDAY NIGHT, YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY, A MAN NAMED JIM TRUSTY. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD HIM OFFER UP A NOVEL THEORY ABOUT THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT.
[JIM TRUSTY] THERE'S A LOT OF SHENANIGANS, IN TERMS OF GRAND JURY USAGE. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T DO A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION FOR A YEAR, ONLY TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT, UNLESS THERE'S MORE TO THE STORY. THEY'LL BE LITIGATION I ASSUME, THAT WILL RELATE TO THESE ISSUES OF HOW THE GRAND JURY WAS USED OR ABUSED. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AGAIN, NEW TERRITORY WHEN THE DOJ SHIFTS AN INVESTIGATION AT THE LAST-MINUTE, TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT VENUE.
[ALEX WAGNER] OKAY, SO THAT'S MR. TRUSTY, FLOATING THE IDEA THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S USE OF A D.C. -BASED GRAND JURY, THE ONE THAT HE HAS HEARD THIS CASE FOR MONTHS, THAT THAT IS SOMEHOW SUSPICIOUS. AND THAT SOMEHOW, PROSECUTORS ABUSED THE USE OF THIS GRAND JURY, AND THAT THAT ABUSE SHOULD BE LITIGATED BEFORE A JUDGE. NOW ENTER AILEEN CANNON, THE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE OVERSEEING THAT CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE DOWN IN FLORIDA. THE DAY AFTER MR. TRUSTY LAID OUT THAT ARGUMENT ON FOX NEWS, JUDGE CANNON ISSUED THIS RULING, WITH NO PROMPTING FROM TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM, SHE JUST DID IT ON HER OWN. JUDGE CANNON POINTED TO THE PROSECUTORS USE OF AN OUT OF DISTRICT GRAND JURY, THE ONE IN WASHINGTON D.C. TO CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE AND OR SEEK POST INDICTMENT HEARINGS. SHE DEEMED THE USE OF THAT GRAND JURY SUSPICIOUS. JUDGE CANNON QUESTIONED THE LEGAL PROPRIETY OF THAT MOVE, AND SHE ORDERED SPECIAL COUNSEL PROSECUTORS TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES BY AUGUST 22ND, SO THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE LITIGATED. NOW, EITHER THERE IS A REALLY UNUSUAL PSYCHIC CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MAR-A-LAGO JUDGE AND ONE OF TRUMP'S FORMER LAWYERS, OR ... AND ANDREW LET ME JUST START, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO PUT TOGETHER THIS APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS, WHERE JIM TRUSTY SAYS, D.C. GRAND JURY, FLORIDA GRAND JURY THESE TWO THINGS CAN'T MIX, AND THEN JUDGE CANNON MYSTERIOUSLY COMING OUT WITH THE SORT OF MIRROR OF THAT ARGUMENT. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
[ANDREW WEISSMAN] SO FIRST, REGARDLESS OF HOW SHE GOT THERE, THE FACT OF WHAT SHE DID IS TO SAY THE LEAST UNUSUAL. SHE DID IT AS YOU NOTED, ON HER OWN, AND IT SHOWED A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF BASIC 101 CRIMINAL LAW AS TO HOW GRAND JURIES WORK, WHICH IS TO CONTINUE INVESTIGATING ONGOING CRIME OF EITHER AN EXISTING DEFENDANT OR OTHER DEFENDANTS, AND OTHER CRIMES THAT MAY BE COMMITTED. SO THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE. IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT YOU CAN BRING A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME MAY HAVE OCCURRED. REMEMBER, WHEN YOU START AN INVESTIGATION, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE CRIME HAS OCCURRED OR WHO DID IT, OR WHERE IT CCURRED. SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO TO MANY DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, WHERE IT COULD BE THE CASE, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS. SO THIS WAS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING. AND WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS, WHERE IN GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS SHE GETTING THIS IDEA?! BECAUSE IT IS SO OFF THE CHARTS FROM EVERYTHING IN THE RECORD. WHY IS SHE DOING THIS? IT'S NOT LIKE THE LITIGANTS RAISED THE ISSUE. SHE IS DOING IT ON HER OWN, AND IT IS SO WRONG. AND THEN, THERE YOU HAVE JIM TRUSTY, THE PRESIDENTS, THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S FORMER COUNSEL, RAISING THIS ISSUE THE NIGHT BEFORE. AND THAT MORNING SHE ISSUES THIS. SO IT'S A REAL ISSUE IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT JUDGE CANNON MAY HAVE LEARNED HER LESSON, AND THIS MIGHT BE CANNON 2.0. "OH, SHE HAS REALLY CHANGED SINCE THE 11TH CIRCUIT STRUCK HER DOWN TWICE." THIS SUGGESTS NOT SO. THIS IS STILL CANNON 1.0.
[ALEX WAGNER] YEAH, VERY MUCH. OR JUST CANNON 0.0.
Judge Cannon GETS CAUGHT Taking Instructions from Trump on TV by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch Aug 10, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how a new awful order by Judge Aileen Cannon very closely resembles statements made the night before on Fox by Trump’s on again — off again — lawyer Jim Trusty.
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch network is the corrupt judge Aileen Cannon in the southern district of Florida taking orders from Donald Trump or Trump's lawyers outside of the courtroom I would normally think that that is a pretty outlandish conspiracy theory however the truth may be closer to that than we would like to believe or that I would like to believe in my naivete and the renowned lawyer Andrew Weissman pointed out that a very problematic legal maneuver a very kind of unlawful move that judge Aileen Cannon made on Monday in a new order that she issued which we discussed here on the Meidas touch Network sounded a lot like what one of Donald Trump's lawyers former lawyer Jim trustee was saying on a show the prior evening on Fox and when you analyze it it's almost identical so here's what went down so Donald Trump's kind of lawyer or former lawyer but the lawyer who represented Donald Trump before judge Eileen cannon in the other case where she unlawfully assumed jurisdiction was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals yeah Jim trustee who was humiliated before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals well he went on the show life liberty 11 that's the show hosted by Mark Levin that's how Mark Levin talks that's why I do that impression he's like he's the worst Mark limited he does he owls and knock like this and so when Jim Trusty was on this though Jim Trusty stated that he believed again without any basis he's completely wrong on this he believed that it was Shenanigans I think the term user but it was improper that special counsel Jack Smith had a grand jury in Washington DC that was taking evidence and investigating crimes of Donald Trump but that the indicting grand jury was in the southern district of Florida and ultimately the grand jury that indicted was in the southern district of Florida which Mark Levin and Jim Trusty on this fox show on Sunday night the day before judge Eileen Cannon's order were basically saying someone needs to look into that that's something that should be looked into, I'm gonna play that video in just a moment so you can actually see what Jim trustee said but first let me show you judge Eileen Cannon's order and it was it should have been a fairly routine order that she issued special counsel Jack Smith asked for what's called a Garcia hearing to address unwavable conflicts of interest and the fact that one of the lawyers being paid by Trump's pack a lawyer by the name of Stanley Woodward Jr who's representing one of Donald Trump's co-defendants waltene nauta Woodward also represents at least three other fact Witnesses three other material Witnesses who may have testimony that would be harmful to Trump and Walt team now to creating an unwavable conflict of interest so special counsel Jack Smith in a fairly routine manner although it's not necessarily a routine situation that you have lawyers with these unwavable conflicts that are being alleged here but Jack Smith filed a Garcia motion and the response though from Judge Eileen Cannon was oh you know what I really want walty now to do walty now to and your lawyer Stanley Woodward please submit a brief to me judge Eileen Cannon the corrupt judge Aileen Cannon about the propriety of special counsel Jack Smith and the Department of Justice presenting evidence against Donald Trump before a grand jury in Washington D.C while there are proceedings criminal proceedings here in the southern district of Florida for Trump's willful retention of National Defense information that Trump stole this National Defense information was showing it to people as well so here is the order issued by judge Aileen Cannon where it's like judge you're making the arguments for Trump and walting now to like you're you're acting like you're their advocate when what you're saying is completely without a basis but but where is this even coming from but he here and that's what we asked that's what we queried on the last video that we did here's what is stated in the order in paragraph four walty nauta shall file a response to the motion for Garcia hearing by August 17th among other topics as raised in the motion the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out of District grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and or seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this District the special counsel shall respond to the discussion in a reply and support of the motion do honor before August 22nd 2023 the remaining defendant she's referring to Donald Trump and Carlos De Oliveira may but are not required to file their own briefs related to the grand jury issue referenced herein but any such briefs are due by August 17 2023 and may be submitted in Combined or individual fashion let's go to footnote one and here judge Cannon says this request for supplemental briefing is not intended to substitute and or limit any future motion brought pursuant to Federal Criminal procedure 12b what's that Federal rule of criminal procedure 12b among other thing is a motion to dismiss the indictment so she's saying hey you should file a motion to dismiss this case a motion to dismiss the indictment by the way just so you know that would be appealable to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal but what she's also saying is submit a briefing on the propriety of this grand jury Shenanigans well where did we hear that before and that's what I was saying I'm saying this is it's not following the law it's unusual but she like she's trying to help Trump's lawyers like which is give asking them to to do things that they're not even asking for but here's where it came from an Andrew Weissman brilliantly pointed this out on Mark lemon here on life liberty and Levin this is Trump's lawyer Jim trustee ironically named Jim trustee on life liberty and Levin basically saying what was put in this order 24 hours later so Sunday you had the Mark Levin Show that judge Aileen Cannon was obviously watching or likely watching and then the next day she includes those arguments in her order out of nowhere play the clip it's a good point I mean look you had a presiding judge in DC that had a case that suddenly became indicted in Florida and I'm not saying that it was bad for the president that the case moved to Florida but there's a lot of Shenanigans in terms of grand jury usage you know you don't do a grand jury investigation for a year only to move it to another District unless there's more to the story I'm concerned that some of those abusive behaviors we talked about played out in front of the grand jury in DC and so what Florida got was a much sanitized version of what was presented over the course of a year in D.C so again I'm not on the case though there'll be litigation I assume that relates to these issues of how the grand jury was used or abused but it's certainly again new territory when doj shifts an investigation at the last minute to an entirely different venue and they would start an investigation in a grand jury in one place and move it to another which violates the rules of the Department of Justice but there's a lot of reasons you can do that if you really a sleazy prosecutor including you feel you can get a better grand jury from your perspective in Washington DC than in Florida you're making a point I'm reading between the lines here that a lot of stuff took place in that grand jury in Washington D.C at the Grand Jury and the judge in Florida can't possibly know about you talked about sanitizing that process I assume some of that I'm guessing has to do with attorney-climb privilege information and so forth the reason I'm saying that is past people I have talked to that have faced this man Smith say that's exactly what he does he pierces attorney-client privilege I hooker by crook gets it in front of the grand jury it's used in front of the grand jury and now in this case he's moved it to another grand jury and so the grand jury in Florida and the judge in Florida don't know anything about it unless Trump's lawyers are good enough to raise it with them is that your point yeah I think that's right I again I think there's a lot to be looked into of course the grand jury proceedings in general are one-sided right the old saying about the grand jury on diet of ham sandwich if if a prosecutor asks them to we understand that we're not pretending that the grand jury should be like a full-blown trial it's not but when judges make historic decisions based on ex parte submissions in other words one-sided submissions that defense attorneys don't get to even challenge to make history and then by the way to avoid all appeals by rushing the Witnesses in the grand jury right after they get the friendly ruling I mean all of that smells rotten to me and I think it's the type of stuff that will hopefully be brought to the attention of Judge Cannon or judge shotkin depending on what the specific issue is in Florida or in D.C so folks when you know you put in the comments yeah you know you know Trump's talking to her behind the scenes or the lawyers are you know my reflex is always like that that's not what's happening but I do think what is a possible scenario is that Trump has his lawyers go on Fox they tell her through these types of messages what to do and she's doing it here okay it could be a coincidence it could be a coincidence okay but you saw the video you read the order we read it together now you tell me what you think in the comments below check out Meida touch.com as well for more breaking news coverage the new homepage of the MeidasTouch Network and wherever audio podcasts are available check us out um we're about audio podcasts are available and myself let's have a great day
Judge Cannon BLOWS UP Hearing and ATTACKS Jack Smith by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch Oct 12, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the breaking news that Judge Aileen Cannon just shutdown and postponed a court hearing in the case against Donald Trump because she didn’t like the answers from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team.
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the MeidasTouch Network. Federal judge Eileen Cannon just blew up a hearing that was taking place in the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump that was scheduled for what's called a "Garcia hearing" to determine possible conflicts of interest by the lawyers representing Donald Trump's codefendants, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira during the hearing which continued into the afternoon at approximately 3:00 p.m. eastern time. Judge Eileen Cannon just stopped the proceeding, started yelling at Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, and basically sent everybody home, and refused to hold the hearing, and blamed the prosecution for it, without actually holding the hearing. This is the exact opposite judicial temperament we would expect from a federal judge. But sadly, this is what we've come to expect of Judge Eileen Cannon, who has been doing everything to try to help Donald Trump in connection with the prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith, for Donald Trump's theft of classified documents, top secret documents, sensitive compartmented information. And recall, Donald Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon to the bench in 2020. And she was already overturned twice in connection with a previous case where Donald Trump challenged the search warrant executed by the Department of Justice and FBI, where the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, back in 2022, said that Judge Cannon acted unlawfully in asserting jurisdiction to help Donald Trump.
Now last week on, October 6, 2023, we started to see that, okay, Judge Cannon's strategy here appears to be to incrementally cause delay in favor of Donald Trump, so that she can't be overturned. Because her orders would not be final appealable orders that you can take, what's called ,interlocutory review to the Court of Appeal, since trial court judges have considerable discretion in managing their calendar. But nonetheless creating delays to try to ultimately move the trial date, which right now is scheduled for May of 2024.
Now here was the order that she issued last week. It was an order temporarily staying, or pausing, certain dates related to the classified documents, essentially indefinitely, while she considers a kind of broader continuance of all of the trial dates at Donald Trump's request. So that was the first indication where this was going.
Now today it was scheduled for what's called a Garcia hearing. If you've been following the Meidastouch Network, you know about all the motions back and forth. And one of the things that Judge Cannon had done before as well, she was striking a lot of documents filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith when he wanted to file certain information under seal.
So you saw how adversarial she was being to the Prosecution from the outset.
And then she requested briefing based on some ridiculous idea that was floated on Fox [News] the night before about whether you could have another grand jury proceeding taking place in Washington DC while there were was a Florida grand jury, that was floated on the Mark Levin Show by Donald Trump's proxies. We covered that here.
So finally, though, this Garcia hearing was scheduled for October 12th in the afternoon. And it was to determine if there were conflicts of interests by the lawyers for Donald Trump's codefendants Waltine Nauta, who's Donald Trump's body man, also referred to as his valet, who worked for him at the White House, and also someone named Carlos De Oliveira, the co-defendant who was Donald Trump's head of maintenance.
And so you have Waltine Nauta, who's represented by a lawyer named Stanley Woodward, and you have Carlos De Oliveira, who's represented by a lawyer named John Irving. They're both paid by Donald Trump's political action committee. And they also represented witnesses who have testimony against Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. And these other outside witnesses used to be represented by Woodward. And John Irving no longer represented them. They don't want those people, those lawyers, representing them, and now want to testify against Carlos De Oliveira and against Waltine Nauta.
So this whole hearing was to determine if there were was these unwaiverable conflicts of interest. So to do that, there's a hearing that has to take place.
First, like the threshold question, right?, "Is there a conflict of interest?" And what you would normally do in these situations is the prosecution, in an adversarial way -- this is what the case law in the 11th Circuit, and across the country says -- gets to ask questions of the co-defendant. And the Judge gets to inquire as well. And the lawyers get to inquire as well who represent the potential co- defendants, "Hey, are you aware that your lawyer, Stanley Woodward for example, is also representing this outside witness who wants to testify against you? Are you aware that that could potentially cause prejudice against you? Are you aware that you have the right to Independent counsel? Are you aware that Donald Trump's political action committee is paying for your representation, which may cause certain conflicts of interest that your lawyers ,because they're being paid by Donald Trump's pac, that they're focused on helping Donald Trump? Are you aware of all of those things?"
And then there may be certain things that the Judge wants to ask. If it infringes on attorney client privilege, then certain questions can be asked "in chambers." The prosecution won't be allowed in there.
But that's generally how the hearing goes. And then, if there is a conflict of interest, what's the consequence? Should the lawyers not be permitted to represent the client anymore? Should a lawyer be kind of walled off from certain portions of the representation? Should the lawyer be barred from cross-examining the witness that the lawyer previously represented, but otherwise the lawyer permitted to continue on their representation? Should the lawyer be fully disqualified
The bottom line is that there are options right? And to get to the options, you have to have the hearing. And what judge Cannon just did is she tried to do a reverse order, of that so she basically demanded that the prosecution tell her the outcome of what the prosecution wanted the result to be. And then when the prosecution was like, "let's do the hearing first," then judge Eileen Cannon got pissed off at the prosecution and said, "You don't have an answer for me. You don't know what you're talking about. You want to bar, you think that you want to bar Stanley Woodward from having any involvement whatsoever in the proceeding. Get out of here. We're shutting down this hearing."
And by the way, whether or not there is legitimate concern about what the prosecution's remedy is, as a federal judge you're supposed to have the judicial temperament to proceed with your hearing, and then you could make a ruling. If you think the Prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence, I would then say, "okay, rule against the Prosecution." But it reminds me a lot of how the MAGA Republicans are behaving in the House of Representatives, where they just blow things up; where they just get angry. They walk out of the rooms. They throw papers. Like, it's not a stable way of assessing evidence.
And again, as I've always said, if the Prosecution does a bad job at the hearing, doesn't provide the evidence, they don't meet their burden, issue an order, rule against them. But you don't not hold the hearing.
Here's what basically went down There was two hearings that were combined into the same day of proceedings. The first was Carlos De Oliveira, the maintenance worker, who by all accounts, and people who were there said almost spoke no English, and nonetheless said that he wanted the lawyer being paid for by Trump to continue to represent him. And so it seemed that was what the outcome was going to be, that Carlos De Oliveira, the maintenance worker, was going to still be represented by the Trump lawyer. Fine. And then later in the day, you had the conflicts hearing for Waltine Nauta. Now here's how Hugo Lowell describes it.
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell We are currently in a break in Fort Pierce -- resuming at 3pm ET, Judge Cannon will run through the potential conflicts for Trump's other co-defendant and valent Walt Nauta
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell Trump classified docs case co-defendant Carlos De Oliveira's grasp of English has been an issue that the former Trump lawyers discussed among themselves previously -- they had wondered if he even understood the questions from the FBI during the interviews he's alleged to have lied
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell BUT De Oliveira, who did not complete high school and told the judge he could read English better than he could write, struggled to articulate the exact nature of the potential conflicts in his own wo....
Hugo Lowell@hugolowell New from the federal courthouse in Ft Pierce: Trump co-defendant and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira told a judge he wants to keep his lead lawyer John Irving -- who is being paid by Trump's PAC
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell De Oliveira was asked if he understood Irving's potential conflicts arising from his prior representation of three people the Special Counsel could call as trial witnesses, and he said he would move forward with Irving anyway
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell BUT De Oliveira, who did not complete highschool and told the judge he could read English better than he could write, struggled to articulate the exact nature of the potential conflicts in his own words though he affirmed repeatedly when the judge walked him thru questions
He says, here's how it went down. At 3 p.m. eastern time, Judge Cannon was supposed to run through the potential conflict for Trump's other co-defendant and valet Waltine Nauta. And then what happened was, the district judge Cannon got furious at the Prosecutors saying that they had suggested an absolute bar at the last minute of the hearing itself for Stanley Woodward to continue representing Waltine Nauta. And that that made her so upset, because she said there was no case law from the Southern District of Florida, or 11th Circuit, she said, "We cannot proceed with the Garcia hearing. We are shutting this down."
So they postponed the hearing. She shut down the hearing. Cuz she got upset that the Prosecution didn't put forward case law about whether or not the conflict could create a situation that would result in a lawyer being barred? I mean, it's called Garcia1 The case law is the Garcia case. And it's progeny of cases that interpret it!
As I said at the outset of this video, there are a number of potential remedies that could be utilized. One of them is pure disqualification. But you have to hold the hearing.
So you see how I wanted to be clear, because you see how Judge Cannon seems to have set this up: "Give me the remedy first." She gets angry at the remedy proposed, and then doesn't hold the hearing, ultimately to kind of facilitate what it seems that she's doing, is to cause delay, delay.
So the lesson that Judge Cannon seems to have learned is she needs to be more sneaky about how she creates the mischief.
Now, I want to conclude by saying this: If ultimately the Prosecution, again, does not meet its burden, does not show the evidence, I am okay. I'm not just like cheerleading for the Prosecution, like they have to win everything. Not at all! But you have to go through the motions of the hearing to determine then the scope of the remedy that you're seeking, if there's a conflict or not. You got to go through the order. And Judge Cannon tried to reverse it, and then got upset at it, and then postponed the hearing.
Judge Cannon's pro-Trump bias shines though in latest ruling; discusses postponing documents trial. by Glenn Kirschner Nov 2, 2023 #TeamJustice
On the same day, the two federal judges presiding over former president Donald Trump's criminal cases issued orders resolving some basic legal issues. Judge Tanya Chutkan's 5-page order is short, professional, direct and to the point. But Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon's 15-page order is filled with gratuitous criticism of one party to the case: Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Judge Cannon continues to abuse her discretion to do favors for defendant Trump in his docs case by Glenn Kirschner Mar 19, 2024
Judge Aileen Cannon owes her lifetime appointment as a federal judge to Donald Trump. Yet, with that obvious appearance of a conflict of interest, she continues to preside over his federal prosecution for unlawfully possessing classified documents, obstructing justice, and violating our nation's espionage laws.
Even after an appellate court found she abused her judicial discretion by previously ruling to the benefit of Trump in ways the law did not allow, she continues to issue orders that are rightly described in the following USA Today headline: "Judge in Trump classified documents case proposes 'insane' jury instructions, experts say."
This video does a deep dive into the Presidential Records Act, and Judge Cannon's latest order proposing jury instructions that work to Trump's extreme advantage but have no basis in the law.
Transcript
So friends, given the truly bizarre judicial behavior of Trump appointed judge Aileen Cannon, I think a fair question at this point is is Judge Cannon incompetent, compromised or both? Let's talk about that because Justice matters. [Music] Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, it's becoming increasingly clear that a motion to recuse or remove Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon from presiding over the criminal case of the defendant to whom she owes her lifetime appointment as a federal judge, a motion to remove her from Donald Trump's classified documents obstruction of justice Espionage case, must be filed and litigated, because she just issued another order,...
Judge Cannon delivers gift to Trump, giving him permission to raise motion to dismiss charges again by Glenn Kirschner Mar 16, 2024
In what should be viewed as a break glass moment - and the final straw on the recusal front - Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon delivers Trump an absolute gift. Although she denied Trump's motion to dismiss his 32 espionage charges, she denied the motion "without prejudice." This means Trump can raise the motion again during the trial, at a time when - if she decides to dismiss the charges - Special Counsel Jack Smith COULD NOT APPEAL HER DISMISSAL.
Judge Cannon is virtually trumpeting her bias in favor of the defendant - the very person to whom she owes her lifetime appointment as a federal judge.
This extended video delves into Judge Cannon's ruling and why this act should be the last straw, prompting Smith to finally file a motion to have Cannon removed from the case.
Transcript
so friends judge aen Cannon continues to do extraordinary favors for the defendant to whom she owes her job Donald Trump let's talk about that because Justice matters [Music] hey all Glen kersner here so friends can we talk about Trump appointed judge aen Cannon and the unshakable concern I have that she setting things up to break bad for the prospect of Donald Trump being held accountable for his crimes in his federal case down in Florida on Thursday judge Cannon heard oral arguments for hours on two of Donald Trump's motions to dismiss his case one of those two motions actually both of them but we're going to focus on one today one of those motions was an absolute no-brainer because it was entirely frivolous that is Donald Trump's claim that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional Donald Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act our nation's Espionage laws he's charged with 32 federal felony counts in violation of the Espionage Act the Espionage Act has been on the books since 1917 the Espionage Act has been used to prosecute people countless times people like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg John Walker Aldrich Ames Robert Hansen and other Infamous spies and traitors and each and every time the Espionage Act was challenged in the courts it was held to be constitutional but Donald Trump now says more than a hundred years since it was enacted no no it's unconstitutional under the doctrine of what's called void for vagueness that is actually a Doctrine in the criminal law if a statute is so void no one can understand it no one can make heads or Tales of it we don't even know what conduct it criminalizes it could be unconstitutionally void for vagueness but the Espionage Act is not still that was one of Donald Trump's two motions to dismiss that was argued for hours in that Federal courtroom down in Florida before judge aen cannon on Thursday and judge Canon for the time being denied Donald Trump's motion attacking the constitutionality of the Espionage Act we're going to start with the reporting then we're going to look at judge Cannon's basically onepage ruling denying for the time being Donald Trump's motion to dismiss and then we're going to talk about what's really going on here let's start with the new reporting this from huff post headline judge rejects bid by Donald Trump to throw out classified documents case on constitutional grounds and that article begins a federal judge on Thursday rejected a bid by Donald Trump to throw out his classified documents Criminal case and appeared skeptical during hours of arguments of a separate effort to Scuttle the prosecution ahead of trial US District Judge aen Cannon issued a two-page order saying that though the Trump team had raised various arguments warranting serious consideration a dismissal of the charges was not merited but friends what's really going on here what is Judge Cannon doing and what might she be be trying to accomplish well for that I want to quote my friend and fellow legal analyst Joyce Vance Joyce is an appet Guru an appet expert and this is her take on it as reported by Salon quote the judge's ruling was virtually incomprehensible even to those of us who speak legal as our native language former US attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of Judge Cannon's ruling "deliberately dumb." I would go a little bit farther. I don't know that it was deliberately dumb. I don't know that that's how I would characterize it. I would call it "downright nefarious." Put a pin in that. Joyce continues the good news here is temporary Vance wrote It's what I'd call an ugly win for the government for the prosecution the judge dismissed the vagous argument but just for today she did it without prejudice which means that Trump's lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case in fact the judge seemed to do just that in her order essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial Vance noted that if Canon had ruled R against the government on Thursday Smith's team could have appealed quote but that's not the case if after today's ruling in the government's favor she judge Canon permits Trump to resurrect the motion at trial Vance explained she could Grant the motion to dismiss then and at that point with very rare exceptions that the judge would be in a position to prevent the government can't appeal it all gets thrown out the prosecution is over Jack Smith can't appeal the motion to dismiss if judge Canon does it during the course of the trial rather than prior to trial as she could have done on Thursday Joyce continues that's because once a jury has been impanel double jeopardy attaches and prevents the government the prosecutors from retrying the defendant on the same charges if he's acquitted which is what would happen if the judge granted a motion to dismiss at that point and before a jury rendered a guilty verdict that's the nightmare scenario here friends that's Joyce Vance sounding the alarm Joyce is not typically alarmist and Joyce is sort of the consummate Authority on all things procedural particularly when it comes to what can and can't be appealed and the consequences of a motion to dismiss pre-trial which could be appealed by Jack Smith or during the course of the trial as judge Cannon invited Trump's lawyers to do and that can't be appealed case is over so yes I agree with everything Joyce said with the possible except of Judge Cannon just kind of being deliberately dumb I mean judge Cannon comes across as incompetent but it feels more like she has a nefarious purpose here not just that she's incompetent or being deliberately dumb but friends with that let's turn to Judge Cannon's order, her ruling, you know friends, in my view it's downright crazy that after this issue was briefed up by Donald Trump's lawyers and by Jack Smith's Federal prosecutors and after it was argued in court for hours and the question was whether a 100-year-old statute the Espionage Act the federal criminal laws designed to punish traitors and spies that have been used over and over and over again for a hundred years and always been found to be constitutional never been found to be void for vagueness after all of that judge Cannon issues a legal opinion that spans about 250 words and does not have a single legal Authority cited not a single case of precedent not a single appellate Court opinion nothing it is entirely without legal analysis let me give you something to compare it to you know judge McAfee down in Georgia who just just issued a 23-page legal ruling saying that no D.A. Fani Willis is not disqualified she need not be removed from the RICO prosecution against Trump and his 18 co-defendants criminal Associates co-conspirators I just did a quick count in judge McAfee's 23 page order and in the body of it I think he cites 45 cases as precedent appell at court opinions to support each and every legal conclusion he reached and I didn't even count the ones in the footnotes probably another couple of dozen judge cannon not a single case supporting anything she said in that page and a half long order that spanned like I said something like 250 words please bear with me friends because I want to read some of it indeed most of it to you it will be short and I'm going to invite you to see if you understand it because I don't and just as Joyce Vance said even to those of us who speak pretty fluent legal It is incomprehensible with that let's turn to judge Cannon's recent opinion in the case of United States of America versus Donald Trump wal NAA and Carlos De ala defendants this is Judge Cannon's order denying without prejudice meaning I'm not really denying it I am delaying it I'm pushing it down the road so I'm not denying it what I'm doing is I'm urging you to bring it up again Donald during the course of the trial when I can dismiss it with prejudice and Jack Smith can't appeal it you may have already guessed you're going to get a good bit of editorializing by me as I read through this absurd non-legal opinion I can't even call it a legal opinion it's a gift to Donald Trump order denying without prejudice meaning you can raise it again at your pleasure defendant Trump's motion to dismiss counts 1 through 32 those would would be the Espionage charges based on unconstitutional vagueness this case comes before the court upon defendant Trump's motion to dismiss counts 1 through 32 the Espionage counts based on unconstitutional vagueness the special counsel Jack Smith filed a response in opposition to which defendant Trump filed a reply the court heard argument on the motion on March 14th 2024 upon careful review of the motion related filings and the arguments raised during the hearing not because she issued this ruling virtually as she was walking off the bench at the conclusion of the oral argument so don't tell us you gave thoughtful careful consideration of the oral arguments judge upon careful review of the motion related filings and the arguments raised during the hearing defendants motion is denied without prejudice in other words I'm just putting it off until later and Trump and his lawyers can raise it during the course of the trial when my ruling will do far more damage to the cause of Justice yes my editorial additions defendant Trump seeks dismissal of counts 1 through 32 of the superseding indictment on on the ground that the statutory phrases meaning the language in the federal law the Espionage Act the statutory phrases unauthorized possession relating to the National Defense and entitled to receive appearing in the law 18 USC section 793 e are unconstitutionally vague that's right friends we just can't figure out what in the world it means when the Espionage law that's been on the book since uh 1917 uses phrases like unauthorized possession relating to the National Defense and entitled to receive so confusing so vague can't make heads or tals of that even though this statute has been used over and over over and over and over again to hold accountable traitors and spies Donald Trump maintains they are unconstitutionally vague although the motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration no it doesn't and I haven't found a single legal Authority left right or Center who said oh this motion raises serious legal issues because it doesn't it's frivolous it's baseless it's laughable it's unsupported by any relevant appell Court precedent nevertheless judge Cannon says although the motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration the court ultimately determines following lengthy oral argument There She Goes Again that resolution of the overall question presented now get ready for it friends because you're going to hear some judicial word Sal here the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still fluctuating definitions of statutory terms phrases as charged along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the motion for that reason rather than prematurely decide now whether application of the law in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses the court elects to deny the motion without prejudice to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury instruction briefing and or other appropriate motions so she goes on to deny the motion to dismiss but not really she delays it when you deny something without prejudice it means the defendant can bring it up any time in the future that it suits his fancy like during the trial when they're discussing the instructions to be given to the jury which typically happens right before closing arguments after the evidence is complete it's all in it's been presented and both sides rest their cases that's when judge Canon suggests maybe Donald you'd like to bring it up again then because then you see if if I grant the motion to dismiss Jack Smith can't appeal it and all the Espionage charges get thrown out boy talk about doing an enormous favor though for Donald Trump this is another reason on top of several that have come before why judge Cannon and her impartiality might reasonably be questioned such that Jack Smith should file motion to recuse her remove her from the case because can you imagine even though judge Cannon has sent this signal can you imagine if the motion to remove her has never been made we go through the trial come instruction time she says um Donald remember you wanted to re raise that motion to dismiss and Trump's lawyers do and she says granted all 32 espionage charges thrown out can you imagine if Jack Smith had never filed the motion to remove her motion to recuse how foolish will we all feel looking back at this Telltale sign judge Canon is telling us what she intends to do here I mean she dismissed this in the most off-handed manner no legal Authority no case law precedent supporting this what she just did here this is garbage this is judicial word salad this is nonsense this works to Donald Trump's Advantage not to the advantage of Justice or we the people so I don't feel like I've been in the habit of trying to give advice to Jack Smith because I think he has been doing one hell of a job going hard as hard as he can after Donald Trump now mind you we still have a lot of unindicted co-conspirators that were in the Trump indictment and we're still waiting to see when they're going to be charged but Jack will get around to it but if I could give him any piece of advice it's that you know the time to file a motion to kick her off the case to remove her to have her recused because as the federal law says when a judge's impartiality might might reasonably be questioned the judge shall recuse from the case File the motion litigate it in the full light of day let the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which previously found the judge Canon abused her judicial discretion to the extreme advantage of Donald Trump let the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals make this decision because then you we will have done everything we can do to guard against what judge Canon just told us she intends to do do it because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again [Music] tomorrow [Music]
... an order that is, as the USA Today headline appropriately relates, "insane." Let's look at that new reporting from USA Today. Headline: Judge in Trump classified documents case proposes insane jury instructions experts say And that article begins the judge presiding over charges against former president Donald Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving the White House proposed on Monday jury instructions for the eventual trial that favor his Donald Trump's claim that he Declassified the records US District Judge aen Cannon's proposal tips the scales so far in Trump's direction that legal experts say the prosecutor justice department special counsel Jack Smith might ask an appeals court to remove her from the case Joyce White Vance a former US attorney said the presidential records act isn't a way around rules for handling classified documents because the records are still government property not trumps personal possessions quote expect their response to be hard-hitting Vance said of prosecutors in a post on substack the bottom line is that the presidential records act doesn't forgive Trump for violating criminal laws regarding handling of national Secrets judge Canon's order called for lawyers on both sides to engage with two possible instructions she proposed in one Canon said jurors should quote make a factual finding as to whether the government had proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt the records are personal or presidential in the other Canon proposed telling jurors a president has sole Authority Under the presidential records Act the P to categorize records as personal or presidential during his or her presidency neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision legal experts blasted the order as insane, and nuts. This second scenario is legally insane, and under it Cannon could simply dismiss the charges, said Bradley Moss, National Security lawyer. Vance said both proposals from Cannon virtually direct the jury to find Trump not guilty. It turns out it's two pages of crazy stemming from the Judge's apparent inability to tell Trump "no" when it comes to his argument that he turned the nation's secrets into his personal records by designating them as such under the presidential records act Vance said so friends I can tell you as a federal prosecutor for 30 years, these two proposed instructions are crazy, insane, nuts -- all good ways to describe what it is Judge Cannon just proposed and we're going to talk about exactly why that is and I'm going to try to translate everything from legal leas to English let's start with a 30,000 foot view of what is a jury in instruction so during a criminal trial a jury and a judge have very different jobs jurors are the finders of fact they listen to the testimony of the witnesses they assess their credibility they look at and consider everything that's been moved into evidence you know documents photographs diagrams reports physical pieces of evidence you know in a murder case a gun or a knife or a brick or a bat or a ligature and they decide factually what happened what the evidence proves the judge gives the jury instructions of law what law applies to the case such that once the jurors know what they believe the evidence has proved what the facts are they apply the law to those facts and they decide if the facts fulfill the elements of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt such that they should return a guilty verdict or if the evidence fails to prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt each element of the crime but the judge instructs the jury on matters of law basically they give the the jurors a legal framework into which to plug the evidence their findings of fact jury instruction as judge Canon just proposed in this order two jury instructions jury instructions are typically discussed and debated by the parties the prosecutor and the defense attorney sort of closer in time to the trial we don't even have a trial date here and ordinarily friends you can't even figure out precisely what legal instructions are appropriate until the case is under way and the evidence is coming in because the evidence as it's received during the course of the trial will dictate to a large degree what the appropriate legal instructions are that must be given to the jury so you don't even finalize what jury instructions will be given until the very end of the case ordinarily right before closing arguments we don't even have a trial date or the prospect of a trial date and judge Canon said I want you you prosecutors and defense attorneys to quote engage we're going to talk about her order in a minute engage with these two proposed jury instructions that I've just given you okay now first we have to talk about the presidential records act I know but please bear with me for a few minutes because I'm going to do this in English not legal e because we need to know what the presidential records act I'm going to call it the P um provides for what it really means rather than what Donald Trump says it means or what judge Cannon thinks it means as evidenced by these two proposed crazy, nuts, insane, jury instructions here is in just a few sentences what the presidential records act really is the presidential records act the P requires the president to separate personal documents from presidential records before leaving office that's the law the P makes clear that upon the conclusion of the president's term in office Nara the National Archives assumes responsibility for the custody control preservation of and access to the records of a president president that is the law the P makes the legal status of presidential records clear and unambiguous providing that the United States reserves and retains complete ownership possession and control of presidential records friends that is the law and importantly the presidential records act defines what constitutes presidential records and what are personal records personal records include Diaries journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal the president does not have discretion to categorize a presidential record as a personal record and yes friends that is the law in plain English you know easy to understand unmistakable That's the Law now let's turn to judge Cannon's very short order directing the parties to engage in these two jury instructions that judge Canon made up out of whole cloth in the case of United States of America versus Donald Trump wal NAA and Carlos De ala defendants this new order is titled order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1 through 32 only those are the Espionage charges Donald Trump is indicted on 32 counts of violating our nation's Espionage laws let's look at the relevant part of this order judge Cannon Direct that the parties must engage with the following competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury while reserving counterarguments the problem is she's asking the parties to assume that these scenarios are a correct formulation of the law and friends you don't have to be a lawyer based on what we just reviewed what the presidential records act provides for you're going to see these are not correct formulations of the law here's the first proposed instruction in a prosecution of a former president for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 us code section 793 that's the Espionage Act it's the crime of willful retention of National Defense information a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his or her personal possession at the end of his or her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven Beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definition set forth in the presidential records act no that's not the law that's not the presidential records act as it is on the federal books I just read it to you a personal record is something like a diary or a journal Donald Trump stole classified documents National Security Secrets National Defense information like you heard him talking about on that audio recording made at his New Jersey Golf Club Bedminster where he was talking to people in the room who had no security clearances after he left the presidency he said look at this look at this do you see this this was prepared for me by the military this talks about a contingency plan to um militarily strike Iran look at this can you believe this the jury has no business friends I use that as a an example the jury has no business deciding well let me look at the record and see if it's personal or presidential no that's not what the presidential records act provides so the jury has no business even being instructed this way because it is contrary to the law here is the second proposed instruction by judge Canon a president has sole Authority under the P to categorize records as personal or presidential during his or her presidency that's wrong neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision although there is no formal means in the pr by which a president is to make that categorization an outgoing president's decision to exclude what he or she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president's categorization of those records as personal under the P friends this is not a legal instruction to a jury this is a judge basically announcing that Donald Trump is not guilty because this is an unreviewable decision ision so if he happened to telepathically think that everything I've taken all of the National Defense information all of the classified documents all of our nation's Secrets if he took it all then he was entitled to take it all and the jury has no authority to second guess him that's why this is insane; this is crazy; this is nuts. This is not a legal instruction. This is not in an instruction of law. This is an instruction contrary to existing law the presidential records act and it's virtually a judge announcing to the jury that you don't even get to weigh in because Donald Trump is not guilty based on what I'm telling you right here I don't even know why she would be instructing the jury on this she would just dismiss the case you know friends I was half expecting to see a third proposed instruction where judge Cannon would you know purport to instruct the jury and by the way ladies and gentlemen of the jury this entire prosecution is a Witch Hunt because in substance that's sort of what she's signaling in these first two jury instructions that are contrary to the law now what can be done about this well as I said at the beginning of this video emotion to remove her from the case a motion to recuse has to be filed and litigated and and let the chips fall if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals says no everything she's done is fine well not everything she's done is fine because remember that the 11 circuit court of appeals has already reversed her twice earlier when the investigation into Trump's crimes was ongoing before he was indicted remember how she stepped in and interfered in the ongoing investigation after the FBI had secured a search warrant and seized the evidence of crime from Mara Lago the classified documents that Donald Trump was hoarding and refusing to uh return after they'd been subpoenaed by a grand jury as part of a criminal investigation remember what judge Cannon did she swooped in appointed a special master and told the Department of Justice to stop investigating these documents and the potential crimes of Donald Trump in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals three judge panel including I believe two Trump appointed judges reversed her and said you abused your judicial discretion to the extreme benefit of Donald Trump you interfered in an ongoing doj investigation you can't do that you are reversed so we know that not everything she's done um has been on the up and up has been in accordance with the law she's done enormous favors for Donald Trump by violating her judicial discretion by doing something the law did not allow and here she goes again so a motion to recuse a motion to remove her can and should be filed and litigated and we will live with the 11 circuit court of appeals decision on whether any of this can stand but what Jack Smith shouldn't do in my humble opinion and in my experience as a former career prosecutor is feed the monster you can't feed the monster when a judge is acting lawlessly when a judge has shown herself to be either incompetent or biased in favor of the defendant or both you don't feed the monster by just plowing forward yes I know prosecutors are loathed to antagonize judges by filing motions to kick them off a case but could judge Cannon be any more antagonistic to the cause of Justice could she be any more antagonistic to the people's right to a fair trial the way she continues to side with Donald Trump in ways that are previously according to the appell at court abuses of her judicial discretion and here she goes again you can't feed the monster you've got to starve the monster you've got to take the monster on using all legal Avenues available motion to rec accuse or remove petition for a RIT of mandamus to get the appell at court to tell her to do her job in a lawful way not a lawless way because you don't want to look back at the end of this case with Donald Trump having had all of his charges dismissed by judge aen cannon in a way that was clearly biased and not in keeping with the applicable laws and say should have filed a motion to recuse should have done more I shouldn't have just kept feeding the monster act now litigate the motion to remove her in the full light of day let the chips fall and we the people will live with the consequences but you've got to take this on you can't avoid this battle because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again [Music]
**************************
Judge in Trump classified documents case proposes 'insane' jury instructions, experts say: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon proposed to instruct jurors a president has sole authority to declare records personal, which legal experts say would amount to dismissing the case against Trump. by Bart Jansen USA TODAY March 18, 2024 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 027873007/
The judge presiding over charges against former President Donald Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving the White House proposed on Monday jury instructions for the eventual trial that favor his claim that he declassified the records.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s proposal tips the scales so far in Trump’s direction that legal experts say the prosecutor, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, might ask an appeals court to remove her from the case.
Joyce White Vance, a former U.S. attorney, said the Presidential Records Act isn’t a way around rules for handling classified documents because the records are still government property, not Trump’s personal possessions.
“Expect their response to be hard-hitting,” Vance said of prosecutors in a post on Substack. “The bottom line is that the Presidential Records Act doesn’t forgive Trump for violating criminal laws regarding handling of national secrets.”
Cannon proposed jury instructions for Trump's lawyers, prosecutors to 'engage'
Cannon gave lawyers for Trump and Smith until April 2 to submit proposed jury instructions for the eventual trial. The order on Monday came after a hearing in which she didn’t resolve the dispute over whether the documents fell under the Presidential Records Act.
But her order called for lawyers on both sides to “engage” with two possible instructions she proposed.
In one, Cannon said jurors should “make a factual finding as to whether the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt” the records are personal or presidential.
In the other, Cannon proposed telling jurors “a president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such as categorization decision.”
Cannon's proposed jury instructions 'insane' and 'crazy': legal experts
Legal experts blasted the order as “insane” and “nuts.”
“This second scenario is legally insane,” and under it Cannon could simply dismiss the charges, said Bradley Moss, a national-security lawyer.
George Conway, another lawyer and frequent critic of Trump, argued Cannon shouldn’t be hearing the case and shouldn’t even be a federal judge. Cannon was appointed by Trump and has been widely criticized for decisions that have delayed the trial, including two overturned by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This is utterly nuts,” Conway said.
Vance said both proposals from Cannon "virtually direct the jury to find Trump not guilty."
“It turns out it’s two pages of crazy stemming from the Judge’s apparent inability to tell Trump no when it comes to his argument that he turned the nation’s secrets into his personal records by designating them as such under the Presidential Records Act,” Vance said.
What is the Presidential Records Act?
The Presidential Records Act designates all presidential records public property to be stored at the National Archives. Exceptions are made for personal documents such as birthday cards a president receives while in office.
Trump is charged with retaining about 100 national defense documents dealing with secrets such as defense and weapons capabilities of U.S. and foreign countries, and U.S. nuclear programs, and then conspiring to hide them at his club Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The FBI seized them among thousands of other records during a search in August 2022.
Trump has argued repeatedly that he could take records with him after leaving the White House, despite the Presidential Records Act giving ownership to the National Archives and Records Administration.
In arguing the case should be dismissed, Trump contends he designated the classified records personal before leaving the White House. Trump contends that courts can’t review his decisions over what records were personal, which he could keep, and which were official, which he would have to give the National Archives. The Presidential Records Act makes disputes about the records subject to civil litigation rather than through criminal charges
Trump also argued he declassified them, despite producing no documentation for his assertion. In fact, Trump was recorded in a 2021 meeting saying he kept “secret” military information that he had not declassified.
“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump said, according to the transcript obtained by CNN.
Appeals court called Trump's declassification argument a 'red herring'
Legal experts expect Smith to appeal the jury instructions to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if Cannon adopts what she has proposed. Her order seems to convey the same misunderstanding of the Presidential Records Act as when the 11th Circuit overturned her order for a third-party review of the records.
Cannon had ordered a special master, a retired federal judge, to review the records seized at Mar-a-Lago to determine whether they fell under the Presidential Records Act. Prosecutors had to halt their investigation awaiting the results.
But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit unanimously halted the review by calling Trump’s argument that he declassified the documents so that they fell under the Presidential Records Act a “red herring” because the change wouldn’t have made the government records personal.
“The declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal,” the appeals panel wrote. “So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.”
Moss said if Cannon adopts the jury instructions as she proposed them, Smith could appeal to the 11th Circuit “for a quick reversal.”
Judge Aileen Cannon Grinds Trump's Classified Documents/Obstruction/Espionage Case to a Halt by Glenn Kirschner May 23, 2024
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon should not be presiding over Trump's federal prosecution in Florida. She has brounght the case to a screeching halt be declining to resolve motions in a timely manner and by refusing to even set a trial date. Judge Cannon is NOT an honest broker of the law, and the federal law requires a judge to be removed when his/her "impartially might reasonably be questions."
This vide reviews the latest hearing conducted by Judge Cannon, which provides further evidence of her determination to slow walk the case so as to prevent a timely trial.
Transcript
well friends judge aen Cannon has slowed Donald Trump's Federal prosecution in Florida to a crawl or maybe she's just brought it to a complete stop let's talk about that because Justice matters [Music] hey all Glen kersner here so friends Trump appointed judge aen Cannon who is presiding over Donald Trump's federal case down in Florida the case in which Donald Trump is being prosecuted for unlawfully retaining classified documents obstructing justice and violating our nation's Espionage laws judge Cannon held a rare Hearing in the case and now she has all but brought the case to a grinding halt judge Cannon has no business presiding over this case we the people deserve better we deserve a fair independent and impartial judge let's look at some of the new reporting this from CNN Headline Florida Hearing in Trump classified documents case devolves into shouting match and that article begins during a marathon day of proceedings in the maralago classified documents case a morning Hearing in front of Judge aen Cannon devolved into a shouting match amongst the attorneys and the afternoon series of arguments prompted the judge to wonder if the legal nuances of the case may be too difficult for jurors to understand what the hell does that mean the prosecutors brought a case against Donald Trump they're enforcing the laws of our nation in a very real sense We the People the American people are the victims of Donald Trump Trump's crimes including Espionage offenses that undoubtedly did real and perhaps lasting damage to our national security and a federal judge says you know I just wonder if the jury is capable of even deciding this case what with all the nuances what the hell does that mean that's not the kind of language we typically hear from judges I've never heard language like that in the 30 years I prosecuted cases in military courts and civilian courts in federal courts and local courts in trial courts and appellate courts judge Canon has no business presiding over this case and I'm not even going to take time discussing the shouting match where some of the defense attorneys were making all of these absurd claims of prosecutorial misconduct that the prosecutors said and I quote are absolute garbage and untrue not the kind of language you typically hear from federal prosecutors in court but I'm going to set all that aside and I want to turn to some more of the reporting because what I want to do friends is take on two of the legal issues that the defendants two of the three defendants Walt NAA and Donald Trump Carlos De ala is the third defendant some of the legal issues that two of the defendants um offered to judge Cannon suggesting that these are actually viable legal issues and because judge Cannon has to address these legal issu issues she basically you know slows the prosecution down to a crawl and I want to take on those two issues let's shift over to some new reporting by the Associated Press headline judging the Florida Trump classified documents case will hear more arguments on dismissing charges and that article begins prosecutors and defense lawyers in the classified documents case against former president Donald Trump are due in court Wednesday for the first time since the judge indefinitely postponed the trial earlier this month let me say that again she indefinitely postponed the trial she asked the parties the prosecutors and the defense attorneys previously for proposed trial dates that worked for them prosecutors Jack Smith said July 8th defense attorneys for Donald Trump and his co-defendants said a August 12 so August 12 would have been a no-brainer of a trial date that's the date that was offered by the defense they said they could do it on August 12th judge Cannon said nope nope not July 8th not August 12th in fact I'm setting no trial date judge Cannon should not be presiding over this case let's go back to the AP article the case among four criminal prosecutions against Trump had been set for trial on May 20th but Trump appointed US District Judge aen Cannon cited numerous issues she has yet to resolve as a basis for cancelling the trial date I've got to interject again here friends she has just taken her time resolving these issues and now she cites the very delay occasioned by her sloth and neglect if not incompetence and nefariousness she now cites the delay that she caused as a reason she can't even set a trial date judge Cannon should not be presiding over this case back to the APR on Wednesday Canon was scheduled to hear arguments on a trump request to dismiss the indictment on grounds that it fails to clearly articulate a crime and instead amounts to quote a personal and political attack against President Trump with a Litany of uncharged grievances both for public and media consumption prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith's team which brought the case will argue against that request Trump a republican is not expected to be present for the hearing okay friends now let's turn to two of the issues two of the Motions to dismiss the case one that was filed by Walt NAA one of Trump's codefendants and the other that was filed by Donald Trump himself now mind you they filed these motions saying the cases against them must be dismissed in their entirety they can't be prosecuted let's take on Na's claim first Walt Na's lawyers claimed that NAA is the victim of what's called selective prosecution now first of all the doctrine of selective prosecution is a thing right there is a legal Doctrine known as selective prosecution let's let's talk about precisely what it is so the leading case regarding selective prosecution the leading precedent from the Supreme Court is a case that arose in the aftermath of the Vietnam draft The Selective Service it's a case called weight versus the United States W yte and here's what it involved during the draft back in the Vietnam era there were more than 670,000 people people who failed to register for the draft or who refused to register for the draft and it was a crime there was a statute on the books that said if you fail to register for the draft you're committing a federal offense and so you know after the Vietnam War ended the Department of Justice had to decide well what do we do with the more than 670,000 people who failed or refused to register for the draft and they decided that they would prosecute some of them out of the more than 670,000 people who didn't register for the draft guess how many the Department of Justice prosecuted 13 people just 13 out of the more than 670,000 and those 13 defendants filed motions to dismiss their cases claiming selective prosecution how in the world can you only prosecute 13 out of 67 ,000 who committed the same crime sounds like an argument that might have some Merit right well the Supreme Court decided it really doesn't have much Merit and they announced a test and it was a test that set a very high Bar for a defendant to prove that he or she was being selectively prosecuted in a way that violated the Constitution and the test essentially is is that the the defendant would have to prove that the prosecutors um not only discriminated in who they decided to prosecute and who they decided not to prosecute but they announced that it would have to be discriminatory in its effect in other words some people unfairly got prosecuted and others didn't and it would have to be discriminatory in its purpose in other words you'd have to prove the prosecutor's int tended to discriminate by sing singling out one person or another for prosecution while foregoing prosecution of others for the same crime and in the weight case the Supreme Court said the defendants showed neither discriminatory effect nor discriminatory purpose or intent by the prosecutor so the courts rejected all of those motions to dismiss if you're interested one of the reasons doj decided to prosecute these 13 is they were among I think some of the most vocal proponents of people not registering people violating the federal law and they were urging people not to register basically urging them to commit crime um and for various reasons the Department of Justice obviously couldn't prosecute all 670 uh 67,000 so they chose these 13 as they were the ones who for some factual reason were most worthy of prosecution and the Supreme Court said that's just fine Walt NAA being selectively prosecuted what because tons of other people were criminally helping the defendant Donald Trump unlawfully retain National Security information and obstructing justice by moving boxes around and hiding them from the FBI and from the doj and from the grand jury subpoena requiring their return because there are you know so many other hundreds or thousands of people who were also criminally complicit with Donald Trump doing the same thing it's an absurd Claim by Walt naada that he's being selectively Prosecuting I think the fact that he offers is that well other people may have touched the boxes come on sport it's a frivolous motion to dismiss a baseless motion to dismiss I would go so far as to say it could be called a bad faith motion to dismiss so what would a judge a normal judge a fair impartial and independent judge do with a motion like that well she would read the motion she would read the prosecutor's reply relying on the case law including the Supreme Court precedent on the issue of selective prosecution and she would deny the motion on the papers and she would do it promptly like literally within days of the prosecutor's opposition being filed done let's move on we need to set a trial date we need to move the case forward in the direction of a trial but no not judge Cannon let's just at our at a leisurely Pace set this thing sometime in the future to have motions hearings have oral arguments and then I'll take lots of time maybe weeks or months to actually resolve something that is a BS motion a frivolous motion right a bad faith motion could have been resolved in an instant but instead it lingers for months that's not a judge acting in good faith that's a judge who is proving over and over again that she has no business presiding over this case let's now turn to Donald Trump's motion which is perhaps even more frivolous than Walt Na's selective prosecution motion and it was mentioned in that AP article that I read a moment ago Trump requested to dismiss the indictment on grounds that it fails to clearly articulate a crime and instead amounts to a personal and political attack against President Trump with a Litany of uncharged grievances both for public and media consumption friends that is not the the language of legal motions of federal court filings what that sounds like is an angry unhinged tweet that's not a legal argument that's a bunch of PR blather and claiming that the indictment in the case which chapter and verse sets out each and every alleged crime that the grand grand jury indicted Donald Trump for in many ways it's kind of a standard indictment it is constructed the way federal indictments are constructed every day of the week a hundred times over and have been for decades there's no deficiency there's no infirmity there's no basis to file a motion to dismiss the indictment because gosh darn it it just criticizes Donald Trump too much you know what a judge would do with that I have to tell you there are defense motions that are so frivolous that sometimes judges sarily reject them without even asking the prosecutors to file a response or an opposition because it just kind of falls under the weight of its own frivolity it's so bad it's so ridiculous it's so unsupportable and unsupported by any case law but judge Canon had the prosecutors file an opposition and the minute she got that opposition she could have read it and rejected the motion to dismiss on the papers but no need to take a lot of time have a lot of hearings sometime well off into the future then maybe someday I'll get around to deciding the issue judge Cannon should not be presiding over this case we the people have a dog in this fight we have an interest in a fair just reliable outcome right and the only way we can be assured of a fair just and reliable outcome is if a fair independent impartial judge is assigned to preside over this Federal prosecution in Florida now friends about a week ago or so I um did a Justice matters video that has a step-by-step tutorial on how you anybody who's interested can file a Judicial Complaint Form against judge Cannon and I will put a link to that video in the description of this video um and if I knew how to like put one of those little buttons on the screen at the end of my video so you could just click on it maybe I'll try to get somebody to help me with that but you may have heard me say that you know on the computer front I am e incompetent you know I can't even spell it um but one way or another I'll try to direct your attention to that earlier video that I know a lot of folks used and they followed the step-by-step instructions and they submitted they mailed which is how you have to get it to the 11 circuit court of appeals that is the court that has supervisory responsibility over judge Cannon and those in that federal district um a lot of people took advantage of that step-by-step video and they submitted those judicial complaint forms which any member of the public can uh submit if you feel like judge Cannon's impartiality might reasonably be questioned which is the federal standard that requires her to remove herself from the case you can go ahead and file one of those judicial comp complaint forms and I would urge you to consider doing it you know why because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow
For a step-by-step guide to how every American citizen can file a judicious complaint form demanding a fair, impartial, and independent be appointed to preside over Trump Florida case, please click on the following link:
Judge in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside: Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Aileen M. Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, according to two people briefed on the matter. She chose to keep it. By Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer New York Times June 20, 2024
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s assignment to handle former President Donald J. Trump’s case raised eyebrows because she has scant trial experience and had shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump.
Shortly after Judge Aileen M. Cannon drew the assignment in June 2023 to oversee former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged her to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist, according to two people briefed on the conversations.
The judges who approached Judge Cannon — including the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga — each asked her to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge, the two people said.
But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.
The extraordinary and previously undisclosed effort by Judge Cannon’s colleagues to persuade her to step aside adds another dimension to the increasing criticism of how she has gone on to handle the case.
She has broken, according to lawyers who operate there, with a general practice of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida of delegating some pretrial motions to a magistrate judge — in this instance, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. While he is subordinate to her, Judge Reinhart is an older and much more experienced jurist. In 2022, he was the one who signed off on an F.B.I. warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club and residence in Florida, for highly sensitive government files that Mr. Trump kept after leaving office.
Since then, Judge Cannon has exhibited hostility to prosecutors, handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin even though both the prosecution and the defense had told her they could be ready to start this summer.
But Mr. Trump’s lawyers have also urged her to delay any trial until after the election, and her handling of the case has virtually ensured that they will succeed in that strategy. Should Mr. Trump retake the White House, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case.
As Judge Cannon’s handling of the case has come under intensifying scrutiny, her critics have suggested that she could be in over her head, in the tank for Mr. Trump — or both.
Judge Cannon has broken with a general practice of delegating some pretrial motions to her assigned magistrate judge — in this instance, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart.
Against that backdrop, word of the early efforts by her colleagues on the bench to persuade her to step aside — and the significance of her decision not to do so — has spread among other federal judges and the people who know them.
Neither Judge Cannon nor Judge Altonaga directly responded to requests for comment, including by emails sent via the clerk of the district court, Angela E. Noble. Ms. Noble later wrote in an email: “Our judges do not comment on pending cases.”
It is routine for novice judges to look to more experienced jurists for informal advice or mentoring as they learn to perform their new roles. And as the district’s chief, Judge Altonaga has a formal role in administering the federal judiciary in South Florida.
But ultimately, Judge Cannon is not subject to the authority of her district court elders. Like any Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed judge, she has a life tenure and independent standing and is free to choose to ignore any such advice.
The two people who discussed the efforts to persuade her to hand off the case spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Each had been told about it by different federal judges in the Southern District of Florida, including Judge Altonaga.
Neither of the people identified the second federal judge in Florida who had reached out to Judge Cannon. One of the people confirmed the effort to persuade Judge Cannon to step aside but did not describe the details of the conversations the two judges had with her. The other person offered more details.
This person said each outreach took place by telephone. The first judge to call Judge Cannon, this person said, suggested to her that it would be better for the case to be handled by a jurist based closer to the district’s busiest courthouse in Miami, where the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump had sat.
The Miami courthouse also had a secure facility approved to hold the sort of highly classified information that would be discussed in pretrial motions and used as evidence in the case. Judge Cannon is the sole judge in the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, a two-hour drive north of Miami. When she was assigned to the case, the courthouse in Fort Pierce did not have a secure facility.
Because Judge Cannon kept the case, taxpayers have since had to pay to build a secure room — known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or S.C.I.F. — there.
After that initial argument failed to sway Judge Cannon to step aside, the person said, Judge Altonaga placed a call.
The chief judge — an appointee of former President George W. Bush — is said to have made a more pointed argument: It would be bad optics for Judge Cannon to oversee the trial because of what had happened during the criminal investigation that led to Mr. Trump’s indictment on charges of illegally retaining national security documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.
In August 2022, the F.B.I. obtained a search warrant from Judge Reinhart to go to Mar-a-Lago to hunt for any remaining classified documents that Mr. Trump had failed to turn over after receiving a subpoena for them.
The agents found thousands of government files that Mr. Trump had kept, even though under the Presidential Records Act they should have gone to the National Archives when he left office. The files the F.B.I. recovered included over 100 marked as classified, including some at the most highly restricted level.
Soon after the search, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit against the government protesting the seizure of the materials, which he claimed were his personal property, and asking for a special master to be appointed to sift through them. Rather than letting Judge Reinhart handle that lawsuit, as would be the normal procedure, Judge Cannon chose to decide the matter.
Shocking legal experts across ideological lines, she barred investigators from gaining access to the evidence and appointed a special master, although she said that person would only make recommendations to her and she would make the final decisions.
Judge Cannon’s decision was unusual in part because she intervened before there were any charges — treating Mr. Trump differently from typical targets of search warrants based on his supposed special status as a former president.
She also directed the special master to consider whether some of the seized files should be permanently kept from investigators under executive privilege, a notion that was widely seen as dubious since it has never successfully been made in a criminal case.
Prosecutors appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. In a repudiation, a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees reversed her order and ruled that she never had legal authority to intervene in the first place.
“It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation,” the panel wrote.
Limits on when courts can interfere with a criminal investigation “apply no matter who the government is investigating,” it added. “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.’”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case. In December 2022, Judge Cannon dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit.
Six months later, the grand jury in Miami indicted Mr. Trump, alleging in detail how he had stored highly sensitive documents in a bathroom and on a stage at Mar-a-Lago and persistently led his aides and lawyers to stymie efforts by the Justice Department and the National Archives to recover them.
Under the district’s standard practices, according to its clerk, the new case went into a system that would randomly assign it to one of a handful of judges whose chambers are in the West Palm Beach division, which covers Mar-a-Lago, or in either of its two adjoining divisions, Fort Pierce and Fort Lauderdale.
It went to Judge Cannon.
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. More about Charlie Savage. Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.