By Carol Lucas
I think it is probably safe to say that Judge Aileen Cannon is in way over her head. Of course she isn’t about to recuse herself, based upon her actions up until now. Despite being rebuked, and subsequently overruled, by a higher court with two of the three judges being staunch conservatives, she continues to overtly display her favoritism for defendant Donald J. Trump.
However, she may be pulled up short once again by none other than Jack Smith. It appears he has reached his saturation point with her ridiculous demand for questions to the jurors. This, by the way, for a trial for which she is dragging her feet on setting a date.
It is the flagrant way in which these Trumpian people of authority flaunt their prejudice that is so reprehensible. Folks, this is our judicial system, an arena where bias on the part of the judge has no place. Yet Cannon seems to have forgotten this or perhaps she simply doesn’t give a damn.
So who is Aileen Cannon?
In seeking a little background on this woman, I found she was born in Cali, Colombia, in 1981. She grew up in Miami and attended a private school in the city, and later graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007.
Cannon, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had relatively little experience as a lawyer when nominated by Trump and confirmed in November 2020 by the Senate, which was then controlled by Republicans.
One has to wonder when reading this brief bio how she feels about Trump’s assessment of Latin American migrants as “animals who have poisoned the blood of America.” However, that question could also be posed to the likes of Ted Cruz and others of Hispanic heritage who put aside their pride in order to remain in his good graces. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for this, but I digress as I am often wont to do.
Cannon’s appointment to the federal bench came only 12 years after she was first admitted to practice law, the minimum experience the American Bar Association requires nominees should have. Was it her youth, perhaps accompanied by naivete, that drew the attention of those of The Federalist Society to recommend her position? We know this group has been working over the past several decades to stack all areas of the judicial system with ultra conservative judges.
Whatever brought her to this historically significant placement in history, we know that she is the Florida district judge assigned to oversee Donald Trump’s classified documents case. Furthermore, she was appointed to the federal bench by the former president three years ago, and gave him a favorable ruling at an earlier hearing last year. And currently, she is in the position of having Jack Smith nipping at her heels.
Before we get into the essence of Smith’s latest communication with Judge Cannon, let’s take a look at what Trump’s former Attorney General had to say about her.
In calling the law “pretty clear,” William Barr said Cannon’s ruling to accede to the request from Trump’s lawyers was “deeply flawed” because it removed the ability of FBI and justice department investigators to review the documents in question, at least until the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down her decision in December.
Of course, Barr will certainly never be in the running for any “integrity award” in my opinion. We need only look at some of his actions during the time he served in the former President’s Cabinet to see “flawed” reach its pinnacle.
So, flawed seems to be a working term in the judicial system’s lexicon for the latest breaking news declared that “Special Counsel Jack Smith takes off the gloves and goes after MAGA Judge Aileen Cannon, ripping into her ‘fundamentally flawed’ understanding of the case as well as orders (from Trump lawyers) that have no basis in law or fact.” Smith continued (in court filings) that Cannon doesn’t appear to understand the classified documents case.
Last month, Cannon made the highly unusual request that attorneys prepare two versions of possible jury instructions, including the aforementioned one which would assume that Trump had total authority to take any documents he wanted from the White House.
“Both scenarios rest on an unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise — namely, that the Presidential Records Act and in particular its distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘Presidential’ records, determines whether a former President is ‘authorized,’ under the Espionage Act, to possess highly classified documents and store them in an unsecure facility,” wrote Smith’s team.
Smith and his team criticized Cannon’s absurd request for them to prepare jury instructions that take into consideration Trump’s false claim that he had the authority to take the classified documents. They have said that they will seek assistance from an appeals court if Cannon reifies Trump’s baseless claims. (Tribal.com)
But while she is the assigned jurist, Judge Cannon, will have broad authority to control almost every aspect of this case, including which evidence is admissible, the ability to slow down or speed up proceedings, and even the legal viability of the justice department’s case. This is a pretty hefty assignment for someone 42 years of age who has the bare minimum of experience required for a judgeship. One might even go so far as to suggest that this lack of experience alone is enough to disqualify her from presiding over something this crucial.
History will be the ultimate judge of this conundrum.
At the time of this writing, Judge Cannon denied Trump’s request to dismiss, out of hand, the charges regarded the stolen documents. As many legal scholars were quick to point out, however, while this appeared the be a setback for the former President, that is a misconception.
Instead it leaves the door wide open for several possibilities, all leading to an innocent verdict. That Trump himself praised the judge that same day would seem to underscore this contention.
Carol Lucas is a retired high school teacher and a Lady’s Island resident. She is the author of the recently published “A Breath Away: One Woman’s Journey Through Widowhood.”
