Press Members Cry a River Over the Judge in the Trump Case

 

It hasn’t even been a week since the DOJ announced a new indictment of Donald Trump, this time related to a supposed “conspiracy” to obstruct justice in his handling of government documents under the Espionage Act. In that short amount of time, the press has begun to shift from sheer jubilation to worry.

That change is being driven by who the judge in the case is. As RedState reported, instead of getting a Democrat-appointed judge in a heavily leftwing DC-area jurisdiction, the DOJ is being forced to prosecute Trump in Florida, and the judge just so happens to be Aileen Cannon. Who is Cannon? She’s the same judge who had the press crying a river during the litigation that followed the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.

NBC News printed an angst-filled piece supposing how she “could hobble” the DOJ’s case.

That changed after FBI agents searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 for classified documents. Cannon was randomly assigned to oversee the subsequent legal battle that unfolded between Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department.

In the first case, Cannon ruled in favor of Trump’s request to appoint a “special master” — a third-party attorney — to review whether the documents that the Justice Department and FBI had found in Trump’s home were protected by executive privilege, a contention that many legal experts dismissed.

Well, if “legal experts” dismissed a ruling by a judge that executive privilege doesn’t just disappear because the DOJ says so, then what else is there to discuss? It’s just astonishing to me that these press outlets are able to write stuff like that with a straight face.

But while NBC News tried to couch their consternation in passive-aggressive concern trolling, others were more direct. On MSNBC, two “legal analysts” suggested Cannon should voluntarily pass the case to someone else (Fox News).

Lam argued that Cannon’s legal past with Trump is a “red-herring” but isn’t a substantial basis for her to recuse herself from the case. Vance disagreed with Lam, asserting that Cannon should pass the case to another judge to avoid “any appearance of impropriety.”

“This is about how the public will view this case,” Vance said. “And because of her decisions in the earlier matter where the 11th Circuit didn’t just reverse her, but they said she was out of bounds, that she lacked jurisdiction. They moved extraordinarily quickly to prevent her from allowing Trump to engage in delay. I think that alone might hamper her decision-making,

“The judge who oversees the case has a lot of authority to make subtle decisions that don’t necessarily come to public notice in time to impact the outcome of a case,” Vance continued. “She could impact the selection of jurors. She will rule on pretrial motions. She would rule on the admissibility of evidence if she was the trial judge…”

You know, I don’t remember ever hearing MSNBC or any other mainstream press outlet calling for a Democrat-appointed judge to not handle a case because of past rulings or who appointed them. Only here, in what could be the biggest political indictment in history, is all of that suddenly relevant. How very convenient, right?

Besides, the idea that people would trust the verdict more if it occurred in some far-left judge’s court is farcical. A judge like Cannon actually elevates the appearance of fairness because she’s shown she won’t let the DOJ run all over her. We have a system of justice in this country, and being part of the federal government does not and should not grant special privileges that lead to questionable convictions. If the DOJ believes it has a strong case, it should be able to prove it without any unfair assistance.

As a final example of the press freak-out, here’s Mark Joseph Stein of Slate taking the mask fully off. He slanders Cannon directly, not even attempting to couch it in legalese (Newsbusters).

The federal criminal case against Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents will be overseen, at least initially, by Judge Aileen Cannon, according to the New York Times. This is excellent news for Trump and exceedingly bad news for special counsel Jack Smith. 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.

I’m not sure what Stein is basing any of that on, but hey, if he wants to lose his mind, who am I to stop him? I guess he really hates that Cannon doesn’t treat the DOJ as some kind of sacrosanct fourth branch of the government that can flaunt attorney-client privilege and decide what’s admissible in court internally.

Remember when we were all assured that questioning a judge’s motives was an assault on democracy?

Regardless, the rest of us think Cannon’s caution shows a bent toward fairness. Her past actions, including appointing a special master, no matter what the 11th Circuit said, were simply an attempt to keep transparency at the forefront. She shouldn’t pass this case off, no matter how loud the press scream.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/06/12/press-members-cry-a-river-over-the-judge-in-the-trump-case-n759873?bcid=b525da8bacc123a14f76b601ab8a60185498d811b26b7b600d4dc7792a201745