Judge Cannon has appeared confused by basic legal concepts and indulged the Trump defense team’s wildest arguments

Over the course of seven public hearings related to Donald Trump’s classified documents case, a picture has emerged of Judge Aileen Cannon sometimes appearing prepared for legal questions but at other times having difficulty comprehending even the simplest concepts.

In the view of prosecutors and several legal experts, her tendency to repeatedly ask the same question or miss the point of an argument is proof that the Trump-appointed judge is ill-suited to handle a trial that has already been delayed, repeatedly, by her willingness to grant hearings over the Trump team’s most far-fetched requests. The case’s slow progress, they argue, plays into Trump’s strategy of pushing it past Election Day, and then, if elected, stopping it from ever happening.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To be conservative is to be derivative and uncreative, unempathetic and lacking the ability to even conceive of another person’s perspective without including the totality of their own, and because of all this they tend to come up with rationalizations for why the world is the way it is rather than actually trying to change it.

    All of these are forms of intelligence. To be conservative is to be unintelligent. If your amygdala is so wired for fear that you can’t even think about shit, then just accept what you are (less) and stop yelling over the rest of us, ye screeching gibbons.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haven’t people said there’s a way for Jack Smith to appeal for a different judge if it’s shown she isn’t doing her job? Why hasn’t he done that?

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it is a Hail Mary option. He can appeal but doing so unsuccessfully ensures that Cannon switches from this passive help of the defense to being outright against the prosecution which makes things harder than they already are. A successful appeal still creates a delay in the trial because the new judge has to get up to speed.

      • Gumby@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think at this point she’s already shown that she IS outright against the prosecution.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not like she is already against prosecution. I don’t believe it could be any more partisan than it already is.

        As for delay her last ruling essentially made it indefinite.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But they can’t do anything about it, right?

    That, right there, calls the entire legal-profession & “justice” system into contempt of justice.

    “Checks & Balances” are supposed to prevent ideological highjacking of the judiciary, right?

    Obviously, it was all pretend, all “nudge nudge wink wink” “checks & balances”.

    The legal profession either will finish giving totalitarianism the leverage it needs to exterminate civil-rights,

    XOR ( exclusive-OR ) it will get rewritten in ways that prevent such obscenity from wearing the legal-profession & calling itself “justice”.

    I’m not holding my breath for the Justice solution: incumbent lobby/interest groups wouldn’t ever allow integrity to crimp their style, would they?