Expert rips Cannon's 'mind-boggling' rulings: 'If it were law school she'd be failing'
Judge Aileen Cannon has drawn widespread criticism for her handling of Donald Trump's classified documents case, and one legal expert said she's failing basic questions of law.
The U.S. District Court judge ordered Trump's attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith's team to submit proposed jury instructions that "engage" in two scenarios, each of which misstates the law and facts of the case, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and a former prosecutor who appeared on "Morning Joe" castigated Cannon's oversight of the criminal matter.
"I'm a big defender of the federal judiciary, always have been, even when they don't rule the way I want them to rule, even when the Supreme Court goes their own way," Scarborough said. "Well, it's how they've lived their whole lives, it's what they've talked about, if they're more conservative or more liberal. I'm having a hard time defending Judge Cannon's actions, and not just because it is against Trump. Here's somebody who has been humiliated by the 11th Circuit, one of the most conservative in America. I've got to say, her rulings are mind-boggling, and I don't understand. I'm not alone, a lot of legal experts are perplexed."
Kristy Greenberg, a former criminal division deputy chief in the Southern District of New York, said the judge's mistakes can't just be chalked up to inexperience and suggest something worse.
ALSO READ: Trump is exploiting, abusing, playing, bending and breaking the legal system
"I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt initially – she's a new judge, she's inexperienced, she's taking her time and she's trying to get it right," Greenberg said. "But she's getting it dead wrong. Every time she gets it dead wrong, it's always in Donald Trump's favor. The last month or so, we have a ruling where she is ordering the identities of witnesses to be unsealed. There is no trial date, there is no need to be unsealing the identities and statements of witnesses who could be harassed and have a risk of harm. Then you have her recent non-ruling that she's going to kick the can down the road on whether or not the Espionage Act is vague. It's not vague, it's been well-established law, the terms were clear. It was told to Donald Trump, who was told he couldn't keep the classified documents. That was a bad ruling. Then the third strike is the recent jury instructions, which, again, we don't have a jury."
Cannon asked both parties to instruct the jury on the particulars of the Presidential Records Act, which Trump isn't accused of violating, and that suggests she's seriously considering his argument that the law gives him the authority to declassify anything he wants, even after leaving office.
"As long as he said it was personal, he doesn't get to -- the PRA, whether or not something is personal or presidential, is not the point," Greenberg said. "He is charged with committing violations of the Espionage Act. Nothing in the Presidential Records Act gives him authorization to have classified investigation. It's a red herring. If it were a law school exam, she'd be failing."
Watch the video below or at this link.
Leave a Comment
Related Post