Judge Cannon's 'worrisome' wording sparks fear Trump classified docs case may be dismissed

Judge Aileen Cannon has described two recent filings — both in support of former President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his confidential document case — as helpful, spurring concerns among legal experts and those closely following the case.

Cannon filed to the Florida federal court Wednesday a paperless order accepting two amicus briefs, one from the America First Legal Foundation and one from former Reagan era Attorney General Ed Meese, calling on the Florida federal judge to dismiss charges against Trump, court records show.

"The Court has reviewed the motions" Cannon writes, "and finds that the proposed amicus bring to the Court's attention relevant matter that may be of considerable help to the Court in resolving the cited pretrial motions."

ALSO READ: Fresh scrutiny for Marjorie Taylor Greene after election violation

Former federal prosecutor and frequent MSNBC commentator Andrew Weissmann immediately expressed his concern.

"Ok to take amicus," Weissmann wrote on X. "But the commentary from the court is worrisome."

Cannon gives special counsel Jack Smith — who has charged Trump with 37 counts that include willful retention of national defense information — until March 15 to respond to the briefs.

The first of the two briefs was brought by America First, a nonprofit organization run by former Trump aide Stephen Miller with a professed focus on fighting "anti-white bigotry" and a speciality in launching culture war lawsuits against the Biden administration, according to reporting from the Daily Beast.

Both America First and Meese argue Smith's case should be dismissed, with the legal group focusing on the legalese and the politician dropping names.

"Smith is the classic 'emperor with no clothes,'" concludes Meese's brief. "He has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, or Kanye West."

Politico reporter Kyle Cheney shared the motion on X and noted Cannon's wording mirrors language from Supreme Court rules. He wrote, "It essentially means the amicus briefs have information in them that neither party brought to her attention."

Commenters on Cheney's post took a less restrained view.

"'Considerable help to the court,'" wrote Michael VanDerMar. "Did she mean to say 'considerable help to the defendant'?"

Attorney Bradley Moss simply wrote, "Sigh."