Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to kick the can down the road when it comes to ruling on the constitutionality of prosecuting Donald Trump for obstructing justice when he refused to return sensitive government documents was blasted by one former U.S. attorney who mocked her written justification.
On her Civil Discourse platform, former prosecutor Joyce Vance took aim at Judge Cannon's ruling for its impenetrable legal prose, including sentences such as, "The overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues raised in the motion.”
Vance called Cannon's lament about “unconstitutional vagueness” worrisome before taking up the judge's key assertion.
ALSO READ: Trump campaign hit with new warning about taking illegal donations
"The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak 'legal' as our native language. If you tried to write something that was deliberately dumb, this sentence would be it," she argued.
Continuing in that vein, she added, "Trump’s motion didn’t raise any argument that warranted 'serious consideration,' and the court’s determination was made before the 'lengthy oral argument' she heard today, unless she typed her written opinion up on a 15-minute break."
According to Vance, Cannon's writing was remarkably shallow.
"It looks like the kind of sentence a law clerk might decide was insufficiently precise for anyone to understand, which could be its appeal here for Judge Cannon," she wrote before suggesting, "But I’m afraid of what I think it means."
"The good news here is temporary. It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument—but just for today," she added.
You can read more here.
