'What the hell does that mean?' Legal expert torches Judge Cannon's 'rare hearing'
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner tore into Judge Aileen Cannon, the far-right Donald Trump-appointed jurist overseeing the former president's classified documents case in Florida, who recently, in his words, "held a rare hearing" and "all but brought the case to a grinding halt."
The former president is charged with concealing highly classified national defense information in his Mar-a-Lago country club — perhaps the most straightforward of the four criminal cases Trump is charged with around the country. And yet, Cannon has put the case on ice, all but guaranteeing it cannot be heard until after the election.
"Judge Cannon has no business presiding over this case. We the People deserve better," said Kirschner, taking a deep dive into the most recent hearing, which was by all accounts a "shouting match" between counsel.
ALSO READ: What Trump's weird WWE Hall of Fame speech tells us about his presidential debate strategy
"The American people are the victims of Donald Trump's crimes, including espionage crimes, that undoubtedly did real and perhaps lasting damage to our national security, and a federal judge says, you know, I just wonder if a jury is even capable of deciding this case, what with all the nuances," said Kirschner. "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've prosecuted cases. In military courts and civilian courts, in federal courts and local courts, in trial courts and appellate courts. Judge Cannon has no business presiding over this case."
Kirschner then walked through the legal issues brought up by Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta and Trump himself, which Cannon is using to slow the trial "to a crawl," and concluded they were meritless — specifically, Nauta's claim of "selective prosecution" dating back to precedent set about prosecuting Vietnam draft dodgers, and Trump's claim the indictment is a "personal and political attack" that doesn't articulate a crime. In particular the last one, Kirschner said, sounds like an "angry tweet" and "deranged P.R. blather" instead of a real legal argument, when the indictment does in fact clearly lay out a crime.
He also noted that both special counsel Jack Smith and Trump's own attorneys proposed summer trial dates, and Cannon has not even set any trial date at all — citing the unresolved motions that she has let sit due to her own "sloth and neglect, if not incompetence and nefariousness."
Cannon should have rejected all of these claims out of hand, Kirschner concluded — "but no." Instead she is sitting on them, in a way that helps Trump avoid a trial before the election.
Watch the video below or at the link here.
Leave a Comment
Related Post