'A Trump appointee said no': Conservative flags the moment president's 'con' was 'exposed'

A Donald Trump-appointed judge showed everyone how this president should be handled, according to a conservative analyst Sunday.

New York Times columnist David French, a former writer for the conservative National Review, wrote an article Sunday explaining how, in his view, the president's appointed judge recently "exposed the Trump con."

"Earlier this month, a federal judge appointed by President Trump in 2019, did the worst thing you can do to Trump in a court of law: She took him seriously. She read his words, found them disconnected from reality and acted accordingly," French wrote. "For a very long time, Trump and his supporters have gotten away with a double game. First, they’ll cheer anything and everything that makes him a thoroughly unconventional president — from his bizarre social media posts to his extreme use of executive power — as necessary, absolutely necessary, to save the country and drain the swamp."

He added, "But when Trump’s unprecedented behavior meets with an unprecedented response, MAGA is aggrieved. How dare you treat him differently from other presidents, they say."

According to French, it was Judge Karin Immergut who figured out how to treat the president. French noted that she didn't give Trump deference, in part because he hasn't earned it with public statements.

"Presidents have enjoyed a degree of judicial deference in part because they have earned it. Generations of good faith and fair dealing with federal courts have even created a doctrine called the 'presumption of regularity,' where courts presume that official duties have been properly discharged — unless there is 'clear evidence to the contrary,'" wrote French before adding, "There is now 'clear evidence' — in the form of Trump’s own words — that there is nothing regular about this administration."

He continued:

"Judge Immergut understands this reality clearly. She understands that there are traditions that predate court precedent, that predate any deference to the executive. 'This country,' she wrote, 'has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.'"

French concluded, "That’s correct."

"The best way to evaluate the reasoning behind Trump’s actions is to examine Trump’s words, and Trump’s words reveal a man who isn’t just 'untethered to the facts'; he’s also untethered to the law," he wrote. "Dishonest presidents should be entitled to no deference at all."

Read the full piece here.