All posts tagged "aileen cannon"

Judge Cannon should be removed from Trump case: Watchdog

by Marilyn W. Thompson

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Judge Aileen M. Cannon has shown bias in handling criminal charges against former President Donald Trump and should be reversed and removed from the case to “preserve the appearance of justice,” a public interest group argued in a legal filing on Tuesday.

The brief filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and joined by a retired federal judge and two constitutional lawyers is a direct legal assault on Cannon’s decision to throw out special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents. CREW is a nonpartisan open-government advocacy group that has been at the vanguard of fighting Trump in various legal battles.

The brief argues that Cannon’s decision “hinged on ignoring the plain text of four federal statutes,” dismissing “a landmark Supreme Court opinion confirming the Attorney General’s power to appoint a Special Counsel.”

ALSO READ: Why Trump’s Arlington controversy is actually a crime

CREW writes that “a reasonable member of the public could conclude, as many have, that the dismissal was the culmination of Judge Cannon’s many efforts to undermine and derail the prosecution of this case.”

In a stunning July 15 ruling, Cannon wrote that Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his authority by appointing Smith as special counsel without congressional approval and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. “The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority,” she said. Critics say that decision was incorrect and disregarded years of legal precedent, including a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Smith appealed her decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but he stopped short of asking that Cannon be removed if the case is remanded.

Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge from Massachusetts, was one of several parties who joined CREW as a friend of the court. She told ProPublica she decided after analyzing Cannon’s decision that it could not be explained by her caseload or inexperience.

“It was clearly bias,” said Gertner, who is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, citing repeated rulings from Cannon that were favorable to Trump’s attorneys. “And with this Supreme Court, there’s no ceiling. All precedents are up for grabs.”

Federal statutes governing reassignment of cases give appellate courts authority to ask the chief judge in a district to move the case if the original judge “has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality.” The brief cites several precedents, but reassignment based on judicial bias is uncommon.

Cannon, 43, was appointed to the Fort Pierce courthouse in the Southern District of Florida by Trump in November 2020, after he lost the election to Joe Biden. She was randomly assigned to the Trump document-handling case in 2022.

In May, the circuit’s Judicial Council dismissed several misconduct complaints against Cannon, alleging that she deliberately slowed down the Trump case and that she should have recused herself from the case as a Trump appointee. The panel said it would not discipline a judge unless it found a pattern of slowness in numerous cases and did not require her recusal based on her appointment. At the time, Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. cut off what he called an orchestrated campaign that brought in more than 1,000 letters seeking her removal.

Cannon’s sudden decision to throw out Smith’s case came on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, and Trump praised her in his acceptance speech as a “highly respected federal judge” willing to stand up against what he has called Smith’s “witch hunts.”

Represented by San Francisco lawyer Steven A. Hirsch of Keker, Van Nest & Peters, CREW described Cannon’s decision to end the case as “the culmination of many efforts to undermine and derail the prosecution.” It cited a series of unprecedented rulings over many months in which Cannon appeared to create “a parallel legal universe for former presidents” and crossed the line “to active judicial interference and advocacy” for Trump.

CREW criticized Cannon for adopting a lone concurrence from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an immunity case against Trump and, shortly afterward, rendering a 93-page opinion that echoed the justice’s position that Smith’s prosecutions violated the Constitution.

CREW details “dramatic and unusual” controversies during Cannon’s case that offer the appeals court “more-than-adequate grounds to reassign the case upon remand.”

The 11th Circuit has taken the unusual step of reversing Cannon twice during the course of the case, including a harsh rebuke in December 2022 of her decision to appoint a special master to screen classified documents.

Cannon approved the appointment of a senior federal judge in New York and various federal consultants to examine materials seized from Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Smith had complained to the appeals court that a special master was unnecessary and slowed down the prosecution.

“If the court reverses Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling in this matter, it will be the third time in under three years that it has had to do so in a seemingly straightforward case about a former president’s unauthorized possession of government documents,” CREW argued.

If you have information about Judge Aileen M. Cannon you would like to share, please contact Marilyn W. Thompson at marilyn.thompson@propublica.org or call 917-512-0243.

Alex Mierjeski contributed research.

Expert shows how next week could decide 'whether Judge Cannon should remain' on Trump case

On Tuesday, a process begins that could ultimately decide whether Judge Aileen Cannon will retain control of the criminal case looking into Donald Trump's allegedly unlawful retention of White House documents, a former federal prosecutor said on Sunday.

Ex-prosecutor Joyce Vance wrote for her Substack blog that, on that day, "Special Counsel Jack Smith’s opening brief is due in the Eleventh Circuit, where he’s appealing Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss his prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents and obstructing the investigation into his crimes."

"Judge Cannon ruled in July that the process used to appoint the Special Counsel was unconstitutional and dismissed the case on that basis," according to Vance.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book

According to Vance's article, "no other judge to consider the issue has ruled that way, and prosecutions conducted by special counsels have been routine, if infrequent."

She goes on to say that, if the special counsel, Jack Smith, is found by the appeals court to be eligible to stay on the case, the issue of Cannon's control will arise.

"The issue that is more likely to find its way into the appeal is whether Judge Cannon should remain on the case if the indictment is reinstated. If they win this appeal, the government could ask the court to reassign the case to a new judge," according to Vance. "They could also stay silent on that issue and leave it up to the court, hoping the three-judge panel will act on its own. That has happened in other cases in the Circuit, where a trial judge’s decisions resulted in multiple reversals on appeals involving related issues."

Vance further added that, "Jack Smith never asked Judge Cannon to recuse herself."

"If he had, she would have been required to explain the basis for her decision in a written order if she declined to recuse. That would have given the government (and the court) a record to work with," she wrote. "Absent that, the government could argue that her decision to dismiss, on top of Judge Cannon’s earlier errors, means it would be better to send the case back to a new district judge, who could give the case a fresh look."

Vance also cited an example of when something similar has occurred at the same appeals court.

Read the article here.

Criminologist explains why remaining Trump cases may never go to trial

Over the course of the past year, the relationships between law, politics and justice in our contemporary democratic republic have been torn open. We’ve all witnessed firsthand how each of the criminal indictments of former President Donald Trump have struggled to be adjudicated in their respective jurisdictions.

In effect, these criminal cases have all demonstrated just how arbitrary and capricious the rule of law can be when subject to the decisions of unprincipled and unscrupulous jurists of the highest courts in the land. Or, more pointedly: When legal conflicts are resolved by corrupt political hacks trying to pass themselves off as neutral umpires calling balls and strikes as they interpret constitutional law, we’re in for some serious civic trouble.

ALSO READ: We asked 10 Republican senators: ‘Is Kamala Harris Black?’ Things got weird fast.

More than a year removed from the last of Trump’s four criminal indictments, only one of these has gone to trial.

One might argue that in the interim, Trump’s criminal justice and substantive crimes have been hijacked from the American people by the Supreme Court, which this year granted Trump significant presidential immunity rights. You be the judge of whether the high court’s ruling came down for the primary purpose of making Trump’s alleged criminal wrongdoing disappear.

In fact, it is now quite likely that Trump’s three pending criminal cases and straightforward violations of the criminal law will never go to trial.

Say even one or more of these remaining cases eventually finds their way to trial. And say that Trump is found guilty of felonies.

That may very well not be the final resolution of these matters as we have learned from Trump’s Manhattan hush money case. This is because an anti-democratic alliance of Boss Trump, the GOP and the MAGA majority of the Supreme Court has worked to ensure that justice for Trump is delayed indefinitely, no matter the evidence against him and no matter what a jury of his peers determines.

Anyone who believes no president is above the law should recoil: The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of presidential immunity — and against the Constitution in order to protect the insurrectionary and treasonous behavior of Trump — is to date the most radical expression of weaponizing the law this nation has seen in decades. Or beyond.

Where do Trump’s cases stand?

At this point in time, only the first of these criminal indictments has gone the distance and was decided by a jury of Trump’s peers — or so we thought.

After a New York jury this past spring issued guilty verdicts on each of Trump’s 34 falsification of business records counts — each stemming from his interfering in the 2016 presidential election by paying hush money to a porn star with whom he allegedly had an affair — I more than suggested that “Justice delayed is not always justice denied.”

Boy was I wrong.

At the end of the 2023-24 Supreme Court term, the MAGA majority of justices had ruled to the surprise of virtually every knowledgeable person on Earth that Trump enjoyed presidential immunity from criminal prosecution whether he committed his offenses during, after or even before his presidency.

ALSO READ: 'That's a lie': The 10 quotes Trump said to Black journalists that led to outbursts

Who knew? Certainly not the authors of the Declaration of Independence or the fathers of the U.S. Constitution – the only “originalists” if there ever were any.

As a result of this “unconstitutional” decision, Trump’s scheduled sentencing for July 11 was delayed until September 18 — after the earliest of early voting ballots will have already been cast in the 2024 presidential election.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump’s “lawyers are urging the judge in the New York hush money case to overturn his conviction and dismiss the case.” In addition to other legal arguments, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has responded that the immunity ruling has “no bearing on this prosecution” because the lawsuit was about conduct and events that occurred before Trump became president.

Even if Trump’s lawyers are correct about this new law after the crime, the case should still be immune from the decision. Just as a person cannot face criminal punishment except for an act that was criminalized by law before the act was performed – the principle known as “no crime without a law” — a person should not be exonerated or exempt from criminal punishment because of a “new law after the crime.”

Judge Juan Merchan has told the parties that he will issue his decision by Sept. 6. I am confident that he will rule against Trump and that sentencing should be on schedule for Sept. 18. However, I am also confident that Trump’s legal team will appeal that decision. And, even if that appeal does not delay sentencing, Trump's attorneys will file additional appeals to overturn the sentence — prison time remains a possibility, even if it’s unlikely — as well as to toss the case out for a second time.

A courtroom sketch by the artist Jarvaland of former President Donald Trump and Justice Juan Merchan at the former president's criminal hush money trial. (Courtesy of Jarvaland)

Meanwhile, in the election interference case in the District of Columbia, Judge Tanya Chutkan will soon be reclaiming jurisdiction to assess whether the charges brought by the special counsel Jack Smith fall within or outside of the new guidelines of presidential immunity.

Of course, if Chutkan rules in favor of the prosecution, Trump will appeal that decision as well.

Based on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ separate opinion in the immunity ruling and her concerns about the legality of the special counsel’s appointment, Judge Aileen Cannon on July 15 dismissed the “slam dunk” classified documents case in Florida.

Smith has appealed this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and has not yet asked the 11th Circuit to expedite this case. Thus, in all likelihood, a hearing before Cannon will not occur before sometime in the middle of October. Some time afterwards she will undoubtedly rule in favor of Trump. Then, the special counsel will appeal her decision.

ALSO READ: Texas sheriffs engage conspiracy theorist who created Trump enemies 'target list'

And so it goes: “Procedural justice” at work delaying and stymying “substantive justice.”

None of these appeals will ultimately be resolved for months if not years after the November election. The same can also be assumed should Trump file an appeal to toss out the Fulton County Georgia RICO case — this time for prosecutorial immunity rather than as he has previously done for the violation of his First Amendment rights.

So we now find ourselves in a situation where long before justice delayed is no longer justice denied, the American voters will decide.

As former U.S. prosecutor for the Southern District of Alabama and distinguished professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, Joyce Vance, has written: “Trump now faces prosecutors both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion, where voters will decide whether to send a felon” — or, instead, a prosecutor in presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris — to the White House.

In a nation that has seen the value of the rule of law diminished by the MAGA Supreme Court, the choice seems rather clear.

Gregg Barak is an emeritus professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author of several books on the crimes of the powerful, including Criminology on Trump (2022) and its 2024 sequel, Indicting the 45th President: Boss Trump, the GOP, and What We Can Do About the Threat to American Democracy.

'Something stinks': Questions raised over timing of Judge Cannon's pro-Trump ruling

On Saturday morning on MSNBC, former prosecutor Katie Phang and ex-RNC chair Michael Steele both suggested there was more than a hint of collusion that led to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon to issue her ruling dismissing the obstruction of justice charges filed against Donald Trump on the same day the Republican National Convention convened.

Phang, appearing on Steele's "The Weekend," said the timing was very suspicious coming from a judge most famous for dragging her feet on the DOJ case filed against the man who placed her on the bench with a lifetime appointment.

Noting that Cannon's opinion that special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland was the basis for the dismissal of the case related to stolen government documents hoarded at Mar-a-Lago, ex-prosecutor Phang said everything about Cannon's performance deserves scrutiny.

RELATED: 'Judicial malpractice': Judge Cannon accused of boosting 'wacky or unfounded arguments'

Add to that, the timing of the dismissal.

"Why not dispose of that issue in February? We hear the oral argument including friends of the court which never happens," she began. "This is at the end of June, the beginning of July and then she sits on a 93-page opinion for that long?"

"But the reality is once [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas gave her the green light to file her dismissal, that is when she did it," she added. "And for her to drop that on the first day of the RNC stinks. Something is rotten in Denmark, and I'm going to say it is Aileen Cannon."

Host Steele agreed, interjecting, "I am with you on that one because the timing and the process, the level of, you know, coordination is the only word that comes to mind."

Watch below or at the link.

MSNBC 07 20 2024 09 42 47www.youtube.com

‘Winning’: Republican lawyers justify lawbreaking stars of ‘law and order’ GOP convention

MILWAUKEE — Donald Trump and a fraternity of fellow felons played starring roles at this week’s Republican National Convention.

There was former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, fresh out of federal prison, delivering a prime-time speech.

There was former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, prowling the Fiserv Forum convention floor with official credentials.

More than a dozen Republican convention delegates are indicted “fake electors” charged with attempting to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

And even Kid Rock — who performed a pro-Trump anthem minutes before the former president delivered his lengthy nomination acceptance speech Thursday — has been charged with several crimes over the years stemming from physical altercations.

Republicans, who used the convention to fashion themselves the party of law and order and rule of law, largely dismissed their GOP brethren’s legal troubles as witch hunts, abuse of federal power and the Democrat-driven product of conservatives’ new favorite term — “lawfare.”

But unlike most unelected delegates at the Republican National Convention, some veteran Republican lawyers admitted to Raw Story that Trump and his top advisors actually stepped over the legal line.

“I mean, when you don’t reply to a subpoena, you don’t reply to a subpoena,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) — who has a law degree from Penn State Dickinson Law — told Raw Story on the convention floor Thursday.

Other Republican lawyers turned lawmakers are surprised the Supreme Court recently granted Trump — along with other presidents — sweeping immunity from being prosecuted for anything they claim as an ‘official duty, such as commanding Department of Justice officials to overturn the will of the American people.

“He’s the luckiest man I've ever met,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) told Raw Story as he was entering the convention Thursday. “And he was very lucky on Saturday. Thank God.”

Before coming to Congress, McCaul served as both deputy attorney general of Texas and a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice. He’s still mystified by some recent rulings, including Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision — which is being appealed — that Special Counsel Jack Smith is illegitimate.

“I didn't see some of these recent legal wins coming,” McCaul said. “I'm a federal prosecutor, I was worried about some of these [cases].”

ALSO READ: Associated Press issues warning about iconic Trump assassination attempt photo

Smith is prosecuting Trump for retaining boxes and boxes of sensitive classified documents after leaving the White House

“Do you think a president should still take classified documents with him?” Raw Story asked former Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-TN).

“No. I don't think he should,” Duncan, who previously served as a criminal court judge, said.

‘Yeah?” Raw Story pressed. “But not illegal?”

“Yeah. Yeah,” Duncan — who recently argued in an op-ed that roughly 90% of classified documents are ‘too much’ — told Raw Story. “Technology moves so fast, I can tell you any files that Trump had for three and a half years, it's out of date. So I think it's a bunch of hullabaloo over nothing.”

EXCLUSIVE: Trump ‘secretary of retribution’ won't discuss his ‘target list’ at RNC

Indeed, the Republican lawyers Raw Story talked to at the GOP convention wouldn’t have necessarily prosecuted Trump and his former team — including Navarro, Steve Bannon and Roger Stone — had it been up to them. But they indicated the various cases are far from baseless.

They’re outliers in an arena that gave recently released convict Navarro a standing ovation Wednesday evening..

“Donald Trump's gonna be our next president. Joe Biden's gonna be out of the White House. Peter Navarro's outta jail,” Connecticut delegate Jeff Santopietro told Raw Story after having Navarro sign a copy of his book Thursday. “Listen, first of all, I'm buying it to support him, but I understand it's a good read. And I think that he deserves to get a break in life, because Joe Biden and the government really screwed the guy.”

“Lawfare” may feel like new rhetoric on the right, but it’s become a deeply held conviction to many Republicans.

“It smells like there's two sets of rules and there's not in the world,” Santopietro said. “There's a set of rules for the Bidens and there set of rules for everybody else. If you have an ‘R’ behind the end of your name, or you’re associated with Donald Trump, you end up getting federal officers after you.”

“What’d you make of the New York case against Trump?” Raw Story asked, referring to the case that led to Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from Trump’s hush money payment to former porn actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 president election. Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for September.

“It’s bulls–t,” Santopietro said. “In plain English it was all bulls–t. Matter of fact … that’s a persecution. That wasn't a legal case at all.”

“They should throw that whole case out and say they're sorry and move on. Cause when he's in the White House, January 21st,” Santopietro started before stopping himself. “There’s no payback. But you know what? They deserve everything they get.”

New York Republicans agree.

“Shame on us for basically having a prior president of the United States from your home state, you disown him the day he becomes president, not the day he no longer is president, from your own home state. Who does that? Foolishness,” Tommy — who declined to offer his last name — told Raw Story through his thick Brooklyn accent. “You disown the guy the day he has the authority to make your lives better in your home state out of the other 50 states? Something's not mentally right.”

Republican lawyers see the line Trump and his advisers crossed, but that doesn’t mean they disagree with the party’s unelected base.

“The problem is, [former Obama administration Attorney General] Eric Holder didn’t reply to a subpoena and he’s walking around a free man. He was never prosecuted. Again, it’s the old double standard,” Santorum said. “I think Americans are hopefully getting tired of it and they’d like to have both parties play by the same rules.”

“What do you make of these court cases coming down in Trump's favor?” Raw Story asked.

“The Democrats found a bunch of spurious claims against him. I mean the New York case, he’ll win that on appeal, because it was a bogus charge,” Santorum said. “They have frivolous charges. This is lawfare…they don’t care about winning, they care about damaging politically.”

When asked about the substance of the cases against Trump and his team, McCaul demurred.

“For this crowd, it just validates what they've been thinking, ‘It's all rigged,’” McCaul told Raw Story.

“But what about your crowd of legal scholars?” Raw Story pressed.

“Hey man,” McCaul said. “I know he's winning.”

'Can't overstate how unusual it is': Legal expert puts Judge Cannon on notice in docs case

Evidence is mounting that Judge Aileen Cannon ought to be forced out of overseeing former President Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida.

That's according to MSNBC legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. Glenn Kirschner, who argued in a column for MSNBC on Wednesday night that with each new development in Trump's case, it's become "increasingly clear" that Cannon's impartiality can be questioned.

That’s important, Kirschner said, because federal code states that when a judge’s impartiality might "reasonably be questioned, the judge 'shall disqualify' herself from the case."

"It’s time for a fair, impartial and independent judge to assume responsibility for this case," he said.

Kirschner added that a "virtual mountain of evidence" exists in Trump's Florida case in favor of Cannon’s removal.

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

"Even before the case commenced, when Trump complained in a court about the FBI seizing his stuff, Cannon ordered the Justice Department to stop investigating the classified documents that were retrieved from Trump, despite them being seized under a lawfully issued search warrant," he said. "She then appointed a special master to review the evidence the FBI had taken, bringing the investigation to a grinding halt."

An appeals court later reversed Cannon's decision — and found she abused her judicial discretion.

"In layman’s terms, Cannon did something that the law did not authorize, and she did it to Donald Trump’s extreme advantage. And that was even before the actual prosecution came into existence," he said.

Furthermore, Cannon has thus far refused to set a trial date — despite the case being in court for a year and Trump’s defense team saying it'd be ready to go to trial by August — and she has repeatedly entertained dubious motions from Trump’s team.

"For example, earlier this month Trump filed a 'spoliation of evidence' challenge, arguing that because the FBI didn’t document the exact location of each item inside each box that was seized from Mar-a-Lago, that somehow equates to the FBI intentionally destroying exculpatory evidence," Kirschner wrote in the article published on Wednesday. "Having reviewed seized evidence in hundreds of criminal cases over my 30 years as a federal prosecutor, this assertion is absurd."

Moreover, she's faced criticism even from other judges.

Retired federal Judge Shira Scheindlin criticized Cannon and accused her of showing favoritism towards Trump, and antagonizing prosecutors. Scheindlin suggested that Cannon's inexperience makes her feel "insecure in her rulings."

'Unlike any other judge': Cannon slammed by ex-prosecutor as 'unprofessional'

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's regular clashes with the prosecutors in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case are "unprofessional" and far beyond what a typical judge would let happen in their courtroom, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Salon's Marina Villenueve.

This comes after a series of hearings in which Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge who has come under controversy for dragging out the case past the election, told the prosecutor, David Harbach, "I don't appreciate your tone," and rebuked various complaints.

"They're dealing with a judge who is unlike any other judge," Rahmani told Villenueve. "She is entertaining some ridiculous arguments. She's allowed outsiders who really have nothing to do with the case, to submit briefs and to argue. No judge would allow that."

Normally attorneys do their utmost not to say anything to anger a judge, said Rahmani — but in this case, Cannon has pushed special counsel Jack Smith's legal team to the breaking point. And although Cannon suggested she might order Harbach to be replaced, his behavior in court was not out of bounds.

"Judges have a lot of discretion, but to order a particular attorney off the case because of what I would consider advocacy, that's something that will probably get reversed," said Rahmani. "There's nothing that has crossed the line, in my opinion. And if anything, the judge herself has been unprofessional and kind of criticizing the prosecution in a way that, again, most of the judges would not."

In addition to delaying the case indefinitely and clashing with the prosecutors, Cannon also appears skeptical of instituting a gag order against Trump for pushing conspiracy theories about FBI agents, and previously had to be rebuked by a higher court, including two other Trump appointees, for interfering with the FBI's counterintelligence investigation by handing over the documents to a special master to review them for privilege.

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans subpoena ex-Capitol Police intel head for Jan. 6 inquiry

Exasperated Cannon shuts down prosecutors who said Trump team tried to 'hijack' hearings

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon appeared exasperated with everyone at her latest hearing in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, said Katelyn Polantz on CNN Tuesday.

Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge who has become controversial for dragging out the case and antagonizing prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith, did not appear receptive to the Trump legal team's claim that the search warrant of the former president's South Florida country club for classified documents was invalid, said Polantz — but she still bristled at the prosecution's effort to rein in the Trump team's behavior.

"Take us inside today's hearing," said anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"Wolf, this was a hearing this afternoon that was a rare occasion in the hearings that Judge Aileen Cannon has had many times for two reasons," said Polantz. "First of all, she showed her hand and second of all, it didn't go particularly well for Donald Trump's defense team. That is not how a lot of other hearings have gone for them, even when Judge Cannon ultimately doesn't rule in their favor."

"In this one, their team was arguing to Judge Cannon that the search warrant that the FBI and Justice Department used and went to court to get approval of two years ago was signed off on by a judge, that that was invalid and that it should cause the entire case or a lot of the evidence that was seized during that search of Mar-a-Lago, all of that should be thrown out," Polantz continued. "And Judge Cannon, she just wasn't buying it. She said at the very end of the hearing, Wolf, 'I have a hard time seeing what more needed to be included in the search warrant.' The team was trying to say for Donald Trump that this warrant just wasn't specific enough about what could be taken out of the property or what rooms in Mar-a-Lago agents could go into. Judge Aileen Cannon made pretty clear she didn't agree with that argument. She hasn't ruled yet, and even while she may not be ruling in favor of Trump's team, we still have to wait and see what she does."

ALSO READ: ‘They could have killed me’: Spycraft, ballots and a Trumped-up plot gone haywire

"It didn't go exactly perfectly for the prosecutors either," she added. "She has had quite a lot of tension with them in many hearings. Dressing down prosecutor David Harbach yesterday in court several times, and then today at the very end of the hearing, he jumped up and wanted to point out to her that the defense team was trying to 'hijack the hearings,' that was his words because he thought Trump's team was trying to make accusations about the FBI that were too political and Judge Cannon shut it down immediately, she said these hearings are not being hijacked and we're going to conclude here, I've heard enough."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Katelyn Polantz says Mar-a-Lago hearing went badly for Trumpwww.youtube.com

Expert reveals who could force out 'slow on purpose' Judge Cannon

The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's classified documents case could be given her walking papers and switched out with another judge if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals acts.

That's the take by former federal prosecutor Ty Cobb, who in 2017 was part of the Trump administration's legal team to fend off impeachment.

"So the 11th circuit can make her step aside," he said during an appearance on CNN's "Out Front."

Cannon has bungled Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents case, Cobb maintained, which has languished in her Fort Pierce, Florida courtroom by failing to calendar it and also ineptly shown to be way over her skis.

Indeed, Cannon has already been overturned by the higher court twice after special counsel Jack Smith appealed her decision on exposing classified information and exposing witnesses.

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans subpoena ex-Capitol Police intel head for Jan. 6 inquiry

Cobb called the move by the three-judge panel circuit court to be "irregular" to "reprimand" Cannon for what he called her "huge judicial interference in the criminal justice process in connection with the search warrant and her appointment of a special master and some other things she made up out of whole cloth."

Just today, it was learned that Cannon rebuffed recommendations to hand off the classified documents case to a more experienced judge when the assignment first landed in her lap.

Two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida, including Cecilia M. Altonaga — the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida — urged Cannon to pass on the complicated, high-profile case to another jurist, according to two sources briefed on the discussions who spoke to the New York Times.

Rather than accept their request, the Trump-appointed Cannon instead stayed on the case and has thus revealed some of her lack of experience. Her assignment immediately raised concerns about her impartiality after she previously intervened in ways that aided the ex-president in the criminal investigation that ultimately led to his indictment and drew a sharp rebuke from a conservative appeals court panel.

Cobb characterized Cannon's snail pace getting to trial as unexplainable.

"We're way beyond the point of characterizing her merely as inexperienced," he said. "I think it's like having a race between the tortoise and the hare, and saying the tortoise is not a favorite."

He added: "The reality is, she is slow and she's slow on purpose; she has already delayed this case far beyond where it needs to be."

"Keep in mind as late as March, both sides, Trump's lawyers and the prosecution said this case could be tried this summer."

And yet Cobb accuses Cannon of making that "impossible" and intentionally "pushed it all back on her by herself."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Expert lays blame with Judge Aileen Cannon for encouraging violent attacks on FBI

A former federal prosecutor says a reported historic rise in threats — and violence — against federal agents directly stems from the judge's decisions regarding requests to gag former President Donald Trump in his criminal classified documents case.

A collection of Republican states came to Judge Aileen Cannon demanding special counsel Jack Smith's request for the gag order be rejected so that Trump can take aim at FBI agents involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid. The request was made after Trump claimed FBI agents had been given permission to use deadly force against him.

The claim has been discredited by experts including Attorney General Merrick Garland who said Trump was exploiting routine language used in search warrants.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why Judge Cannon must step away from Trump trial immediately

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace claimed there has been a historic increase in threats and violence against FBI agents and Justice Department officials.

Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman said Cannon has contributed to that, saying Cannon should not have allowed it.

"If you're telling people when federal agents come in to search your house they're coming to shoot you, well, that's exactly what causes, you know, tragedies in searches," cautioned Litman. "But all that Jack Smith has asked for, in a way, this would be no story if it wasn't in front of Judge Cannon."

He said that what Smith and prosecutors had done in the search was "so routine, so cut and dried" that no other judge would allow Trump's lawyer to make such claims.

"This could result in significant, imminent and foreseeable danger," Litman cautioned."

See his full comments in the video below or at the link here.

Ex-prosecutor blames Judge Cannon for FBI becoming targets of the right-wingwww.youtube.com