Judge Cannon Takes Up Trump Jim Trusty Defense to Sua Sponte

[admin]

Trump judge [Judge Aileen Cannon] in docs case makes misguided argument curiously similar to Fox News guest: Weissmann
by Alex Wagner
MSNBC
Aug 8, 2023 #msnbc #trump #DOJ

Andrew Weissmann, former federal prosecutor, talks with Alex Wagner about the remarkably ill-informed challenge by Judge Aileen Cannon of Justice Department procedure in the Donald Trump classified documents case, and its curious similarity to an identical argument made by a former Trump attorney on Fox News the previous day.



Transcript

[ALEX WAGNER] IF YOU ARE WATCHING FOX NEWS ON
SUNDAY NIGHT, YOU MIGHT HAVE
HEARD OF DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER
ATTORNEY, A MAN NAMED JIM
TRUSTY.
YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD HIM OFFER
UP A NOVEL THEORY ABOUT THE
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE
AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT.

[JIM TRUSTY] THERE'S A LOT OF SHENANIGANS,
IN TERMS OF GRAND JURY USAGE.
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T DO A GRAND
JURY INVESTIGATION FOR A YEAR,
ONLY TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER
DISTRICT, UNLESS THERE'S MORE
TO THE STORY.
THEY'LL BE LITIGATION I ASSUME,
THAT WILL RELATE TO THESE
ISSUES OF HOW THE GRAND JURY
WAS USED OR ABUSED.
BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AGAIN, NEW
TERRITORY WHEN THE DOJ SHIFTS
AN INVESTIGATION AT THE
LAST-MINUTE, TO AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT VENUE.

[ALEX WAGNER] OKAY, SO THAT'S MR. TRUSTY,
FLOATING THE IDEA THAT THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S USE OF A D.C.
-BASED GRAND JURY, THE ONE THAT
HE HAS HEARD THIS CASE FOR
MONTHS, THAT THAT IS SOMEHOW
SUSPICIOUS.
AND THAT SOMEHOW, PROSECUTORS
ABUSED THE USE OF THIS GRAND
JURY, AND THAT THAT ABUSE
SHOULD BE LITIGATED BEFORE A
JUDGE.
NOW ENTER AILEEN CANNON, THE
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE OVERSEEING
THAT CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE
DOWN IN FLORIDA.
THE DAY AFTER MR. TRUSTY LAID
OUT THAT ARGUMENT ON FOX NEWS,
JUDGE CANNON ISSUED THIS
RULING, WITH NO PROMPTING FROM
TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM, SHE JUST
DID IT ON HER OWN. JUDGE CANNON POINTED TO THE
PROSECUTORS USE OF AN OUT OF
DISTRICT GRAND JURY, THE ONE IN
WASHINGTON D.C. TO CONTINUE TO
INVESTIGATE AND OR SEEK POST
INDICTMENT HEARINGS.
SHE DEEMED THE USE OF THAT
GRAND JURY SUSPICIOUS.
JUDGE CANNON QUESTIONED THE
LEGAL PROPRIETY OF THAT MOVE,
AND SHE ORDERED SPECIAL COUNSEL
PROSECUTORS TO EXPLAIN
THEMSELVES BY AUGUST 22ND, SO
THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE
LITIGATED.
NOW, EITHER THERE IS A REALLY
UNUSUAL PSYCHIC CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE MAR-A-LAGO JUDGE AND ONE OF TRUMP'S FORMER LAWYERS, OR ...
AND ANDREW LET ME JUST START,
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO PUT TOGETHER
THIS APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS,
WHERE JIM TRUSTY SAYS, D.C.
GRAND JURY, FLORIDA GRAND JURY
THESE TWO THINGS CAN'T MIX, AND
THEN JUDGE CANNON MYSTERIOUSLY COMING OUT WITH THE
SORT OF MIRROR OF THAT
ARGUMENT. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

[ANDREW WEISSMAN] SO FIRST, REGARDLESS OF HOW
SHE GOT THERE, THE FACT OF WHAT
SHE DID IS TO SAY THE LEAST
UNUSUAL. SHE DID IT AS YOU NOTED,
ON HER OWN, AND IT SHOWED A
FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF
BASIC 101 CRIMINAL LAW AS TO
HOW GRAND JURIES WORK,
WHICH IS TO CONTINUE
INVESTIGATING ONGOING CRIME OF
EITHER AN EXISTING DEFENDANT OR
OTHER DEFENDANTS, AND OTHER
CRIMES THAT MAY BE COMMITTED.
SO THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE.
IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT YOU
CAN BRING A GRAND JURY
INVESTIGATION IN ANY DISTRICT
WHERE THE CRIME MAY HAVE
OCCURRED.
REMEMBER, WHEN YOU START AN
INVESTIGATION, YOU DON'T EVEN
KNOW THAT THE CRIME HAS
OCCURRED OR WHO DID IT, OR
WHERE IT CCURRED.
SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO TO MANY
DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, WHERE IT
COULD BE THE CASE, AS LONG AS
YOU HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS.
SO THIS WAS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL
MISUNDERSTANDING.
AND WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT
IS, WHERE IN GOD'S GREEN EARTH
IS SHE GETTING THIS IDEA?!
BECAUSE IT IS SO OFF THE CHARTS
FROM EVERYTHING IN THE RECORD.
WHY IS SHE DOING THIS?
IT'S NOT LIKE THE LITIGANTS
RAISED THE ISSUE.
SHE IS DOING IT ON HER OWN, AND
IT IS SO WRONG.
AND THEN, THERE YOU HAVE JIM
TRUSTY, THE PRESIDENTS, THE
FORMER PRESIDENT'S FORMER
COUNSEL,
RAISING THIS ISSUE THE NIGHT
BEFORE.
AND THAT MORNING SHE ISSUES
THIS.
SO IT'S A REAL ISSUE IN TERMS
OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT JUDGE
CANNON MAY HAVE LEARNED HER
LESSON, AND THIS MIGHT BE CANNON 2.0.
"OH, SHE HAS REALLY CHANGED SINCE
THE 11TH CIRCUIT STRUCK HER
DOWN TWICE."
THIS SUGGESTS NOT SO. THIS IS STILL CANNON 1.0.

[ALEX WAGNER] YEAH, VERY MUCH. OR JUST CANNON 0.0.

[admin]

Judge Cannon GETS CAUGHT Taking Instructions from Trump on TV
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Aug 10, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how a new awful order by Judge Aileen Cannon very closely resembles statements made the night before on Fox by Trump’s on again — off again — lawyer Jim Trusty.



Transcript

I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch
network is the corrupt judge Aileen
Cannon in the southern district of
Florida taking orders from Donald Trump
or Trump's lawyers outside of the
courtroom I would normally think that
that is a pretty outlandish conspiracy
theory however the truth may be closer
to that than we would like to believe or
that I would like to believe in my
naivete and the renowned lawyer Andrew
Weissman pointed out that a very
problematic legal maneuver a very kind
of unlawful move that judge Aileen
Cannon made on Monday in a new order
that she issued which we discussed here
on the Meidas touch Network
sounded a lot like what one of Donald
Trump's lawyers
former lawyer Jim trustee was saying on
a show the prior evening on Fox and when
you analyze it it's almost identical so
here's what went down so Donald Trump's
kind of lawyer or former lawyer but the
lawyer who represented Donald Trump
before judge Eileen cannon in the other
case where she unlawfully assumed
jurisdiction was overturned by the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals yeah Jim
trustee who was humiliated before the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals well he
went on the show life liberty 11 that's
the show hosted by Mark Levin that's how
Mark Levin talks that's why I do that
impression he's like he's the worst Mark
limited he does he owls and knock like
this
and so when Jim Trusty was on this
though Jim Trusty stated that he
believed again without any basis he's
completely wrong on this he believed
that it was Shenanigans I think the term
user but it was improper that special
counsel Jack Smith had a grand jury in
Washington DC that was taking evidence
and investigating crimes of Donald Trump
but that the indicting grand jury was in
the southern district of Florida and
ultimately the grand jury that indicted
was in the southern district of Florida
which Mark Levin and Jim Trusty on this
fox show on Sunday night the day before
judge Eileen Cannon's order were
basically saying someone needs to look
into that that's something that should
be looked into, I'm gonna play that video
in just a moment so you can actually see
what Jim trustee said but first let me
show you judge Eileen Cannon's order and
it was it should have been a fairly
routine order that she issued special
counsel Jack Smith asked for what's
called a Garcia hearing to address
unwavable conflicts of interest and the
fact that one of the lawyers being paid
by Trump's pack a lawyer by the name of
Stanley Woodward Jr
who's representing one of Donald Trump's
co-defendants waltene nauta Woodward
also represents at least three other
fact Witnesses three other material
Witnesses who may have testimony that
would be harmful to Trump and Walt team
now to creating an unwavable conflict of
interest so special counsel Jack Smith
in a fairly routine manner although it's
not necessarily a routine situation that
you have lawyers with these unwavable
conflicts that are being alleged here
but Jack Smith filed a Garcia motion and
the response though from Judge Eileen
Cannon was oh you know what I really
want walty now to do walty now to and
your lawyer Stanley Woodward please
submit a brief to me judge Eileen Cannon
the corrupt judge Aileen Cannon about
the propriety of special counsel Jack
Smith and the Department of Justice
presenting evidence against Donald Trump
before a grand jury in Washington D.C
while there are proceedings criminal
proceedings here in the southern
district of Florida for Trump's willful
retention of National Defense
information that Trump stole this
National Defense information was showing
it to people as well so here is the
order issued by judge Aileen Cannon
where it's like judge
you're making the arguments for Trump
and walting now to like you're you're
acting like you're their advocate when
what you're saying is completely without
a basis but but where is this even
coming from but he here and that's what
we asked that's what we queried on the
last video that we did here's what is
stated in the order in paragraph four
walty nauta shall file a response to the
motion for Garcia hearing by August 17th
among other topics as raised in the
motion the response shall address the
legal propriety of using an out of
District grand jury proceeding to
continue to investigate and or seek
post-indictment hearings on matters
pertinent to the instant indicted matter
in this District
the special counsel shall respond to the
discussion in a reply and support of the
motion do honor before August 22nd 2023
the remaining defendant she's referring
to Donald Trump and Carlos De Oliveira
may but are not required to file their
own briefs related to the grand jury
issue referenced herein but any such
briefs are due by August 17 2023 and may
be submitted in Combined or individual
fashion let's go to footnote one
and here judge Cannon says this request
for supplemental briefing is not
intended to substitute and or limit any
future motion brought pursuant to
Federal Criminal procedure 12b what's
that Federal rule of criminal procedure
12b among other thing is a motion to
dismiss the indictment so she's saying
hey you should file a motion to dismiss
this case a motion to dismiss the
indictment by the way just so you know
that would be appealable to the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeal but what she's
also saying is submit a briefing on the
propriety of this grand jury Shenanigans
well where did we hear that before and
that's what I was saying I'm saying this
is it's not following the law it's
unusual but she like she's trying to
help Trump's lawyers like which is give
asking them to to do things that they're
not even asking for but here's where it
came from an Andrew Weissman brilliantly
pointed this out on Mark lemon here on
life liberty and Levin this is Trump's
lawyer Jim trustee ironically named Jim
trustee on life liberty and Levin
basically saying what was put in this
order 24 hours later so Sunday you had
the Mark Levin Show that judge Aileen
Cannon was obviously watching or likely
watching and then the next day she
includes those arguments in her order
out of nowhere play the clip it's a good
point I mean look you had a presiding
judge in DC that had a case that
suddenly became indicted in Florida and
I'm not saying that it was bad for the
president that the case moved to Florida
but there's a lot of Shenanigans in
terms of grand jury usage you know you
don't do a grand jury investigation for
a year only to move it to another
District unless there's more to the
story I'm concerned that some of those
abusive behaviors we talked about played
out in front of the grand jury in DC and
so what Florida got was a much sanitized
version of what was presented over the
course of a year in D.C so again I'm not
on the case though there'll be
litigation I assume that relates to
these issues of how the grand jury was
used or abused but it's certainly again
new territory when doj shifts an
investigation at the last minute to an
entirely different venue and they would
start an investigation in a grand jury
in one place and move it to another
which violates the rules of the
Department of Justice but there's a lot
of reasons you can do that if you really
a sleazy prosecutor including you feel
you can get a better grand jury from
your perspective in Washington DC than
in Florida
you're making a point I'm reading
between the lines here that a lot of
stuff took place in that grand jury in
Washington D.C
at the Grand Jury and the judge in
Florida can't possibly know about you
talked about sanitizing that process I
assume some of that I'm guessing has to
do with attorney-climb privilege
information and so forth the reason I'm
saying that is past people I have talked
to that have faced this man Smith say
that's exactly what he does he pierces
attorney-client privilege I hooker by
crook gets it in front of the grand jury
it's used in front of the grand jury and
now in this case he's moved it to
another grand jury and so the grand jury
in Florida and the judge in Florida
don't know anything about it unless
Trump's lawyers are good enough to raise
it with them is that your point
yeah I think that's right I again I
think there's a lot to be looked into of
course the grand jury proceedings in
general are one-sided right the old
saying about the grand jury on diet of
ham sandwich if if a prosecutor asks
them to we understand that we're not
pretending that the grand jury should be
like a full-blown trial it's not but
when judges make historic decisions
based on ex parte submissions in other
words one-sided submissions that defense
attorneys don't get to even challenge to
make history and then by the way to
avoid all appeals by rushing the
Witnesses in the grand jury right after
they get the friendly ruling I mean all
of that smells rotten to me and I think
it's the type of stuff that will
hopefully be brought to the attention of
Judge Cannon or judge shotkin depending
on what the specific issue is in Florida
or in D.C so folks when you know you put
in the comments yeah you know you know
Trump's talking to her behind the scenes
or the lawyers are you know my reflex is
always like that that's not what's
happening but
I do think what is a possible scenario
is that Trump has his lawyers go on Fox
they tell her through these types of
messages what to do and she's doing it
here okay it could be a coincidence
it could be a coincidence okay but you
saw the video you read the order we read
it together now you tell me what you
think in the comments below check out
Meida touch.com as well for more
breaking news coverage the new homepage
of the MeidasTouch Network and wherever
audio podcasts are available check us
out
um we're about audio podcasts are
available
and myself let's have a great day

[admin]

Judge Cannon BLOWS UP Hearing and ATTACKS Jack Smith
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Oct 12, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the breaking news that Judge Aileen Cannon just shutdown and postponed a court hearing in the case against Donald Trump because she didn’t like the answers from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team.



Transcript

I'm Ben Meiselas from the MeidasTouch
Network. Federal judge Eileen Cannon just
blew up a hearing that was taking place
in the criminal prosecution of Donald
Trump that was scheduled for what's
called a "Garcia hearing" to determine
possible conflicts of interest by the
lawyers representing Donald Trump's
codefendants, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira
during the hearing which continued
into the afternoon at approximately 3:00
p.m. eastern time. Judge Eileen Cannon
just stopped the proceeding, started
yelling at Special Counsel Jack Smith's
team, and basically sent everybody home,
and refused to hold the hearing, and
blamed the prosecution for it, without
actually holding the hearing. This is the
exact opposite judicial temperament we
would expect from a federal judge. But
sadly, this is what we've come to expect
of Judge Eileen Cannon, who has been
doing everything to try to help Donald
Trump in connection with the prosecution
by Special Counsel Jack Smith, for Donald
Trump's theft of classified documents,
top secret documents, sensitive
compartmented information. And recall,
Donald Trump appointed Judge Aileen
Cannon to the bench in 2020. And she was
already overturned twice in connection
with a previous case where Donald Trump
challenged the search warrant executed by
the Department of Justice and FBI, where
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, back in
2022, said that Judge Cannon acted
unlawfully in asserting jurisdiction to
help Donald Trump.

Now last week on,
October 6, 2023, we started to see that, okay,
Judge Cannon's strategy here appears to
be to incrementally cause delay in favor
of Donald Trump, so that she can't be
overturned. Because her orders would not
be final appealable orders that
you can take, what's called ,interlocutory
review to the Court of Appeal, since
trial court judges have considerable
discretion in managing their calendar.
But nonetheless creating delays to try
to ultimately move the trial date,
which right now is scheduled for May of
2024.

Now here was the order that she
issued last week. It was an order
temporarily staying, or pausing, certain
dates related to the classified
documents, essentially indefinitely, while
she considers a kind of broader
continuance of all of the trial dates at
Donald Trump's request. So that was the
first indication where this was going.

Now today it was scheduled for what's
called a Garcia hearing. If you've been
following the Meidastouch Network, you
know about all the motions back and
forth. And one of the things that Judge
Cannon had done before as well, she was
striking a lot of documents filed by
Special Counsel Jack Smith when he
wanted to file certain information under
seal.

So you saw how adversarial she was
being to the Prosecution from the outset.

And then she requested briefing based on
some ridiculous idea that was floated on
Fox [News] the night before about whether you
could have another grand jury proceeding
taking place in Washington DC while
there were was a Florida grand jury, that
was floated on the Mark Levin Show by
Donald Trump's proxies. We covered that
here.

So finally, though, this Garcia
hearing was scheduled for October 12th
in the afternoon. And it was to
determine if there were conflicts of
interests by the lawyers for Donald
Trump's codefendants Waltine Nauta, who's
Donald Trump's body man, also referred to
as his valet, who worked for him at the
White House, and also someone named
Carlos De Oliveira, the co-defendant who
was Donald Trump's head of maintenance.

And so you have Waltine Nauta, who's
represented by a lawyer named Stanley
Woodward, and you have Carlos De Oliveira, who's
represented by a lawyer named John
Irving. They're both paid by Donald
Trump's political action committee. And
they also represented witnesses who have
testimony against Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
And these other outside witnesses
used to be represented by Woodward. And
John Irving no longer represented them.
They don't
want those people, those lawyers,
representing them, and now want to testify
against Carlos De Oliveira and against Waltine Nauta.

So this whole hearing was to
determine if there were was these unwaiverable
conflicts of interest. So to do that,
there's a hearing that has to take place.

First, like the threshold question, right?,
"Is there a conflict of interest?" And what
you would normally do in these
situations is the prosecution, in an
adversarial way -- this is what the case
law in the 11th Circuit, and across the
country says -- gets to ask questions of
the co-defendant. And the
Judge gets to inquire as well. And the
lawyers get to inquire as well who
represent the potential co-
defendants, "Hey, are you aware that your
lawyer, Stanley Woodward for example, is
also representing this outside witness
who wants to testify against you? Are you
aware that that could potentially cause
prejudice against you? Are you aware that
you have the right to Independent
counsel? Are you aware that Donald
Trump's political action committee is
paying for your representation, which may
cause certain conflicts of interest that
your lawyers ,because they're being paid
by Donald Trump's pac, that they're
focused on helping Donald Trump? Are you
aware of all of those things?"

And then
there may be certain things that the
Judge wants to ask. If it infringes on
attorney client privilege, then certain
questions can be asked "in chambers." The
prosecution won't be allowed in there.

But that's generally how the hearing
goes. And then, if there is a
conflict of interest, what's the
consequence? Should the lawyers not be permitted to
represent the client anymore? Should a
lawyer be kind of walled off from
certain portions of the
representation? Should the lawyer be
barred from cross-examining the witness
that the lawyer previously represented,
but otherwise the lawyer permitted to
continue on their representation? Should the
lawyer be fully disqualified

The bottom line is that there are options right? And
to get to the options, you have to have
the hearing. And what judge Cannon just
did is she tried to do a reverse order,
of that so she basically demanded that
the prosecution tell her the outcome of
what the prosecution wanted the result to be.
And then when the prosecution was like,
"let's do the hearing first," then judge
Eileen Cannon got pissed off at the
prosecution and said, "You don't have an
answer for me. You don't know what you're
talking about. You want to bar, you think
that you want to bar Stanley
Woodward from having any
involvement whatsoever in the proceeding.
Get out of here. We're shutting down this
hearing."

And by the way, whether or not
there is legitimate concern about what
the prosecution's remedy is, as a federal
judge you're supposed to have the
judicial temperament to proceed with
your hearing, and then you could make a
ruling. If you think the Prosecution did
not provide sufficient evidence, I would
then say, "okay, rule against the
Prosecution." But
it reminds me a lot of how the MAGA
Republicans are behaving in the House of
Representatives, where they just blow
things up; where they just get angry. They
walk out of the rooms. They throw papers.
Like, it's not a stable way of assessing
evidence.

And again, as I've always said,
if the Prosecution does a bad job at the
hearing, doesn't provide the evidence,
they don't meet their burden, issue an
order, rule against them. But you don't not
hold the hearing.

Here's what basically went down There was
two hearings that were combined into the
same day of proceedings. The first was
Carlos De Oliveira, the maintenance worker, who
by all accounts, and people who were
there said almost spoke no English, and
nonetheless said that he wanted the
lawyer being paid for by Trump to
continue to represent him. And so it
seemed that was what the outcome
was going to be, that Carlos De Oliveira, the
maintenance worker, was going to still be
represented by the Trump lawyer. Fine. And
then later in the day, you had the
conflicts hearing for Waltine Nauta. Now here's
how Hugo Lowell describes it.

Hugo Lowell @hugolowell
We are currently in a break in Fort Pierce -- resuming at 3pm ET, Judge Cannon will run through the potential conflicts for Trump's other co-defendant and valent Walt Nauta

Hugo Lowell @hugolowell
Trump classified docs case co-defendant Carlos De Oliveira's grasp of English has been an issue that the former Trump lawyers discussed among themselves previously -- they had wondered if he even understood the questions from the FBI during the interviews he's alleged to have lied

Hugo Lowell @hugolowell
BUT De Oliveira, who did not complete high school and told the judge he could read English better than he could write, struggled to articulate the exact nature of the potential conflicts in his own wo....

Hugo Lowell@hugolowell
New from the federal courthouse in Ft Pierce: Trump co-defendant and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira told a judge he wants to keep his lead lawyer John Irving -- who is being paid by Trump's PAC

Hugo Lowell @hugolowell
De Oliveira was asked if he understood Irving's potential conflicts arising from his prior representation of three people the Special Counsel could call as trial witnesses, and he said he would move forward with Irving anyway

Hugo Lowell @hugolowell
BUT De Oliveira, who did not complete highschool and told the judge he could read English better than he could write, struggled to articulate the exact nature of the potential conflicts in his own words though he affirmed repeatedly when the judge walked him thru questions

He says, here's
how it went down. At 3 p.m.
eastern time, Judge Cannon was supposed
to run through the potential conflict
for Trump's other co-defendant and valet
Waltine Nauta. And then what happened was,
the district judge Cannon got furious
at the Prosecutors saying that they had
suggested an absolute bar at the last
minute of the hearing itself for Stanley
Woodward to continue
representing Waltine Nauta. And that
that made her so upset, because she said
there was no case law from the Southern
District of Florida, or 11th Circuit, she
said, "We cannot proceed with the Garcia
hearing. We are shutting this down."

So they postponed the hearing. She shut
down the hearing. Cuz she got upset that
the Prosecution didn't put forward case
law about whether or not the conflict
could create a situation that would
result in a lawyer being barred? I mean,
it's called Garcia1 The case law is the Garcia
case. And it's progeny of cases that
interpret it!

As I said at the outset of
this video, there are a number of
potential remedies that could be
utilized. One of them is pure
disqualification. But you have to hold
the hearing.

So you see how I wanted to
be clear, because you see how Judge Cannon
seems to have set this up: "Give me the
remedy first." She gets angry at the
remedy proposed, and then doesn't hold
the hearing, ultimately to kind of
facilitate what it seems that she's
doing, is to cause delay, delay.

So the lesson that Judge Cannon seems to have
learned is she needs to be more sneaky
about how she creates the mischief.

Now, I want to conclude by saying this: If
ultimately the Prosecution, again, does
not meet its burden, does not show the
evidence, I am okay. I'm not just like
cheerleading for the Prosecution, like they
have to win everything. Not at all! But
you have to go through the motions of
the hearing to determine then the scope
of the remedy that you're seeking, if
there's a conflict or not. You got to go
through the order. And Judge Cannon tried
to reverse it, and then got upset at it,
and then postponed the
hearing.

I'm Ben Meiselas from the MeidasTouch
Network.

[admin]

Judge Cannon's pro-Trump bias shines though in latest ruling; discusses postponing documents trial.
by Glenn Kirschner
Nov 2, 2023 #TeamJustice

On the same day, the two federal judges presiding over former president Donald Trump's criminal cases issued orders resolving some basic legal issues. Judge Tanya Chutkan's 5-page order is short, professional, direct and to the point. But Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon's 15-page order is filled with gratuitous criticism of one party to the case: Special Counsel Jack Smith.

[admin]

Judge Cannon continues to abuse her discretion to do favors for defendant Trump in his docs case
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 19, 2024

Judge Aileen Cannon owes her lifetime appointment as a federal judge to Donald Trump. Yet, with that obvious appearance of a conflict of interest, she continues to preside over his federal prosecution for unlawfully possessing classified documents, obstructing justice, and violating our nation's espionage laws.

Even after an appellate court found she abused her judicial discretion by previously ruling to the benefit of Trump in ways the law did not allow, she continues to issue orders that are rightly described in the following USA Today headline: "Judge in Trump classified documents case proposes 'insane' jury instructions, experts say."

This video does a deep dive into the Presidential Records Act, and Judge Cannon's latest order proposing jury instructions that work to Trump's extreme advantage but have no basis in the law.



Transcript

So friends, given the truly bizarre
judicial behavior of Trump appointed
judge Aileen Cannon, I think a fair question
at this point
is is Judge Cannon
incompetent,
compromised or
both? Let's talk about that because
Justice
matters.
[Music]
Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here. So friends,
it's becoming increasingly clear that a
motion to recuse or remove Trump-appointed
judge Aileen Cannon from
presiding over the criminal case of the
defendant to whom she owes her lifetime
appointment as a federal judge,
a motion to remove her from Donald
Trump's classified documents obstruction
of justice Espionage case, must be filed
and
litigated, because she just issued
another order,...

Judge Cannon delivers gift to Trump, giving him permission to raise motion to dismiss charges again
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 16, 2024

In what should be viewed as a break glass moment - and the final straw on the recusal front - Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon delivers Trump an absolute gift. Although she denied Trump's motion to dismiss his 32 espionage charges, she denied the motion "without prejudice." This means Trump can raise the motion again during the trial, at a time when - if she decides to dismiss the charges - Special Counsel Jack Smith COULD NOT APPEAL HER DISMISSAL.

Judge Cannon is virtually trumpeting her bias in favor of the defendant - the very person to whom she owes her lifetime appointment as a federal judge.

This extended video delves into Judge Cannon's ruling and why this act should be the last straw, prompting Smith to finally file a motion to have Cannon removed from the case.



Transcript

so friends judge aen Cannon continues to
do extraordinary favors for the
defendant to whom she owes her job
Donald
Trump let's talk about that because
Justice
matters
[Music]
hey all Glen kersner here so friends can
we talk about Trump appointed judge aen
Cannon and the unshakable concern I have
that she setting things up to break bad
for the prospect of Donald Trump being
held accountable for his crimes in his
federal case down in
Florida on Thursday judge Cannon heard
oral arguments for hours on two of
Donald Trump's motions to dismiss his
case one of those two motions actually
both of them but we're going to focus on
one today one of those motions was an
absolute
no-brainer because it was entirely
frivolous that is Donald Trump's claim
that the Espionage Act is
unconstitutional Donald Trump is charged
with violating the Espionage Act our
nation's Espionage laws he's charged
with 32 federal felony counts in
violation of the Espionage Act the
Espionage Act has been on the books
since
1917 the Espionage Act has been used to
prosecute people countless times people
like Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg John Walker Aldrich Ames
Robert
Hansen and other Infamous spies and
traitors and each and every time the
Espionage Act was challenged in the
courts it was held to be
constitutional but Donald Trump now says
more than a hundred years since it was
enacted no no it's
unconstitutional under the doctrine of
what's called void for vagueness that is
actually a Doctrine in the criminal law
if a statute is so void no one can
understand it no one can make heads or
Tales of it we don't even know what
conduct it criminalizes it could be
unconstitutionally void for vagueness
but the Espionage Act is
not still that was one of Donald Trump's
two motions to dismiss that was argued
for hours in that Federal courtroom down
in Florida before judge aen cannon on
Thursday and judge Canon for the time
being denied Donald Trump's motion
attacking the constitutionality of the
Espionage Act we're going to start with
the reporting then we're going to look
at judge Cannon's basically onepage
ruling denying for the time being Donald
Trump's motion to dismiss and then we're
going to talk about what's really going
on
here let's start with the new reporting
this from huff
post headline judge rejects bid by
Donald Trump to throw out classified
documents case on constitutional grounds
and that article begins a federal judge
on Thursday rejected a bid by Donald
Trump to throw out his classified
documents Criminal case and appeared
skeptical during hours of arguments of a
separate effort to Scuttle the
prosecution ahead of trial US District
Judge aen Cannon issued a two-page order
saying that though the Trump team had
raised various arguments warranting
serious consideration a dismissal of the
charges was not
merited but friends what's really going
on here what is Judge Cannon doing and
what might she be be trying to
accomplish well for that I want to quote
my friend and fellow legal analyst Joyce
Vance Joyce is an appet Guru an appet
expert and this is her take on it as
reported by
Salon quote the judge's ruling was
virtually
incomprehensible even to those of us who
speak legal as our native language
former US attorney Joyce Vance wrote on
Substack, calling part of Judge
Cannon's ruling "deliberately
dumb." I would go a little bit farther. I
don't know that it was deliberately dumb.
I don't know that that's how I would
characterize
it. I would call it "downright
nefarious." Put a pin in
that. Joyce continues the good news here
is temporary Vance wrote It's what I'd
call an ugly win for the government for
the
prosecution the judge dismissed the
vagous argument but just for today she
did it without prejudice which means
that Trump's lawyers could raise the
argument again later in the case in fact
the judge seemed to do just that in her
order essentially inviting the defense
to raise the argument again at
trial Vance noted that if Canon had
ruled R against the government on
Thursday Smith's team could have
appealed quote but that's not the case
if after today's ruling in the
government's favor she judge Canon
permits Trump to resurrect the motion at
trial Vance explained she could Grant
the motion to dismiss then and at that
point with very rare exceptions that the
judge would be in a position to prevent
the government can't
appeal it all gets thrown out the
prosecution is over Jack Smith can't
appeal the motion to dismiss if judge
Canon does it during the course of the
trial rather than prior to trial as she
could have done on
Thursday Joyce
continues that's because once a jury has
been impanel double jeopardy attaches
and prevents the government the
prosecutors from retrying the defendant
on the same charges if he's acquitted
which is what would happen if the judge
granted a motion to dismiss at that
point and before a jury rendered a
guilty verdict that's the nightmare
scenario
here friends that's Joyce Vance sounding
the
alarm Joyce is not typically alarmist
and Joyce is sort of the consummate
Authority on all things procedural
particularly when it comes to what can
and can't be appealed and the
consequences of a motion to dismiss
pre-trial which could be appealed by
Jack Smith or during the course of the
trial as judge Cannon invited Trump's
lawyers to do and that can't be appealed
case is over so yes I agree with
everything Joyce said with the possible
except
of Judge Cannon just kind of being
deliberately dumb I mean judge Cannon
comes across as incompetent but it feels
more like she has a nefarious purpose
here not just that she's incompetent or
being deliberately
dumb but friends with that let's turn to
Judge Cannon's order, her ruling, you know
friends, in my view it's downright crazy
that after this issue was briefed up by
Donald Trump's lawyers and by Jack
Smith's Federal prosecutors and after it
was argued in court for hours and the
question was whether a 100-year-old
statute the Espionage Act the federal
criminal laws designed to punish
traitors and spies that have been used
over and over and over again for a
hundred years and always been found to
be constitutional never been found to be
void for
vagueness after all of that judge Cannon
issues a legal opinion that spans about
250 words and does not have a single
legal Authority
cited not a single case of precedent not
a single appellate Court opinion nothing
it is entirely without legal analysis
let me give you something to compare it
to you know judge McAfee down in Georgia
who just just issued a 23-page legal
ruling saying that no D.A. Fani Willis is
not disqualified she need not be removed
from the RICO prosecution against Trump
and his 18 co-defendants criminal
Associates co-conspirators I just did a
quick count in judge McAfee's 23 page
order and in the body of it I think he
cites 45 cases as precedent appell at
court opinions to support each and every
legal conclusion he reached and I didn't
even count the ones in the footnotes
probably another couple of dozen judge
cannon not a single case supporting
anything she said in that page and a
half long order that spanned like I said
something like 250 words please bear
with me friends because I want to read
some of it indeed most of it to you it
will be short and I'm going to invite
you to see if you understand it because
I don't and just as Joyce Vance said
even to those of us who speak pretty
fluent
legal It is
incomprehensible with that let's turn to
judge Cannon's recent
opinion in the case of United States of
America versus Donald Trump wal NAA and
Carlos De ala
defendants this is Judge Cannon's order
denying without prejudice meaning I'm
not really denying it I am delaying it
I'm pushing it down the road so I'm not
denying it what I'm doing is I'm urging
you to bring it up again Donald during
the course of the trial when I can
dismiss it with prejudice and Jack Smith
can't appeal
it you may have already guessed you're
going to get a good bit of
editorializing by me as I read through
this
absurd non-legal opinion I can't even
call it a legal
opinion it's a gift to Donald
Trump order denying without prejudice
meaning you can raise it again at your
pleasure defendant Trump's motion to
dismiss counts 1 through 32 those would
would be the Espionage
charges based on unconstitutional
vagueness this case comes before the
court upon defendant Trump's motion to
dismiss counts 1 through 32 the
Espionage counts based on
unconstitutional
vagueness the special counsel Jack Smith
filed a response in opposition to which
defendant Trump filed a reply the court
heard argument on the motion on March
14th
2024 upon careful review of the motion
related filings and the arguments raised
during the hearing not because she
issued this ruling virtually as she was
walking off the bench at the conclusion
of the oral argument so don't tell us
you gave thoughtful careful
consideration of the oral arguments
judge upon careful review of the motion
related filings and the arguments raised
during the hearing defendants motion is
denied without prejudice in other words
I'm just putting it off until later and
Trump and his lawyers can raise it
during the course of the trial when my
ruling will do far more damage to the
cause of
Justice yes my editorial
additions defendant Trump seeks
dismissal of counts 1 through 32 of the
superseding indictment on on the ground
that the statutory phrases meaning the
language in the federal law the
Espionage Act the statutory phrases
unauthorized possession relating to the
National Defense and entitled to receive
appearing in the law 18 USC section 793
e are
unconstitutionally
vague that's right friends
we just can't figure out what in the
world it means when the Espionage law
that's been on the book since uh
1917 uses phrases like unauthorized
possession relating to the National
Defense and entitled to receive so
confusing so vague can't make heads or
tals of that even though this statute
has been used over and over over and
over and over again to hold accountable
traitors and
spies Donald Trump maintains they are
unconstitutionally vague although the
motion raises various arguments
warranting serious
consideration no it
doesn't and I haven't found a single
legal Authority left right or Center who
said oh this motion raises serious legal
issues because it doesn't it's frivolous
it's baseless it's laughable it's
unsupported by any relevant appell Court
precedent nevertheless judge Cannon says
although the motion raises various
arguments warranting serious
consideration the court ultimately
determines following lengthy oral
argument There She Goes Again that
resolution of the overall question
presented now get ready for it friends
because you're going to hear some
judicial word Sal
here 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 as
raised in the motion for that reason
rather than prematurely decide now
whether application of the law in these
circumstances yields unsalvageable
vagueness despite the asserted judicial
glosses the court elects to deny the
motion without prejudice to be raised as
appropriate in connection with jury
instruction briefing and or other
appropriate
motions so she goes on to deny the
motion to dismiss but not really she
delays it when you deny something
without prejudice it means the defendant
can bring it up any time in the future
that it suits his fancy like during the
trial when they're discussing the
instructions to be given to the jury
which typically happens right before
closing arguments after the evidence is
complete it's all in it's been presented
and both sides rest their
cases that's when judge Canon suggests
maybe Donald you'd like to bring it up
again then because then you see if if I
grant the motion to dismiss Jack Smith
can't appeal it and all the Espionage
charges get thrown out boy talk about
doing an enormous favor though for
Donald Trump this is another reason on
top of several that have come
before why judge Cannon and her
impartiality might reasonably be
questioned such that Jack Smith should
file motion to recuse her remove her
from the case because can you imagine
even though judge Cannon has sent this
signal can you
imagine if the motion to remove her has
never been made we go through the trial
come instruction time she says um Donald
remember you wanted to re raise that
motion to dismiss and Trump's lawyers do
and she says
granted all 32 espionage charges thrown
out can you imagine if Jack Smith had
never filed the motion to remove her
motion to
recuse how foolish will we all feel
looking back at this Telltale
sign judge Canon is telling us what she
intends to do here I mean she dismissed
this in the most off-handed manner no
legal Authority no case law precedent
supporting this what she just did here
this is garbage this is judicial word
salad this is
nonsense this works to Donald Trump's
Advantage not to the advantage of
Justice or we the
people
so I don't feel like I've been in the
habit of trying to give advice to Jack
Smith because I think he has been doing
one hell of a job going hard as hard as
he can after Donald Trump now mind you
we still have a lot of unindicted
co-conspirators that were in the Trump
indictment and we're still waiting to
see when they're going to be charged but
Jack will get around to it but if I
could give him any piece of
advice it's that you know the time to
file a motion to kick her off the case
to remove her to have her recused
because as the federal law says when a
judge's impartiality might might
reasonably be questioned the judge shall
recuse from the
case File the motion litigate it in the
full light of day let the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals which previously found
the judge Canon abused her judicial
discretion to the extreme advantage of
Donald Trump let the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals make this decision because
then you we will have done everything we
can do
to guard against what judge Canon just
told
us she intends to
do do
it because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
[Music]
tomorrow
[Music]

... an order that is, as the
USA Today headline appropriately
relates, "insane." Let's look at that new reporting
from USA Today.
Headline: Judge in Trump classified
documents case proposes insane jury
instructions experts
say And that article begins the judge
presiding over charges against former
president Donald Trump for allegedly
hoarding classified documents after
leaving the White House proposed on
Monday jury instructions for the
eventual trial that favor his Donald
Trump's claim that he Declassified the
records US District Judge aen Cannon's
proposal tips the scales so far in
Trump's direction that legal experts say
the prosecutor justice department
special counsel Jack Smith might ask an
appeals court to remove her from the
case Joyce White Vance a former US
attorney said the presidential records
act isn't a way around rules for
handling classified documents because
the records are still government
property not trumps personal possessions
quote expect their response to be
hard-hitting Vance said of prosecutors
in a post on
substack the bottom line is that the
presidential records act doesn't forgive
Trump for violating criminal laws
regarding handling of national
Secrets judge Canon's order called for
lawyers on both sides to engage with two
possible instructions she proposed in
one Canon said jurors should quote make
a factual finding as to whether the
government had proven Beyond A
Reasonable Doubt the records are
personal or
presidential in the other Canon proposed
telling jurors a president has sole
Authority Under the presidential records
Act the P to categorize records as
personal or presidential during his or
her presidency neither a court nor a
jury is permitted to make or review such
a categorization
decision legal experts blasted the order
as insane, and
nuts. This second scenario is legally
insane, and under it Cannon could simply
dismiss the charges, said Bradley Moss,
National Security lawyer. Vance said both
proposals from Cannon virtually direct
the jury to find Trump not
guilty. It turns out it's two pages of
crazy stemming from the Judge's apparent
inability to tell Trump "no" when it comes
to his argument that he turned the
nation's secrets into his personal
records by designating them as such
under the presidential records act Vance
said
so friends I can tell you as a federal
prosecutor for 30 years, these two
proposed instructions are crazy, insane,
nuts -- all good ways to describe what it
is Judge Cannon just proposed and we're
going to talk about exactly why that is
and I'm going to try to translate
everything from legal leas to English
let's start with a 30,000 foot view of
what is a jury in instruction so during
a criminal trial a jury and a judge have
very different jobs jurors are the
finders of fact they listen to the
testimony of the witnesses they assess
their credibility they look at and
consider everything that's been moved
into evidence you know documents
photographs diagrams reports physical
pieces of evidence you know in a murder
case a gun or a knife or a brick or a
bat or a
ligature and they decide factually what
happened what the evidence
proves the judge gives the jury
instructions of law what law applies to
the case such that once the jurors know
what they believe the evidence has
proved what the facts are they apply the
law to those facts and they decide
if the facts fulfill the elements of the
crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt such
that they should return a guilty verdict
or if the evidence fails to prove Beyond
A Reasonable Doubt each element of the
crime but the judge instructs the jury
on matters of law basically they give
the the jurors a legal framework into
which to plug the evidence their
findings of
fact jury instruction
as judge Canon just proposed in this
order two jury
instructions jury instructions are
typically discussed and debated by the
parties the prosecutor and the defense
attorney sort of closer in time to the
trial we don't even have a trial date
here and ordinarily friends you can't
even figure out precisely what legal
instructions are appropriate until the
case is under way and the evidence is
coming in because the evidence as it's
received during the course of the trial
will dictate to a large degree what the
appropriate legal instructions are that
must be given to the jury so you don't
even finalize what jury instructions
will be given until the very end of the
case ordinarily right before closing
arguments we don't even have a trial
date or the prospect of a trial date and
judge Canon said
I want you you prosecutors and defense
attorneys to quote engage we're going to
talk about her order in a minute engage
with these two proposed jury
instructions that I've just given you
okay now first we have to talk about the
presidential records act I know but
please bear with me for a few minutes
because I'm going to do this in English
not legal e because we need to know what
the presidential records act I'm going
to call it the
P um provides for what it really means
rather than what Donald Trump says it
means or what judge Cannon thinks it
means as evidenced by these two proposed
crazy, nuts, insane, jury instructions here
is in just a few sentences what the
presidential records act really
is the presidential records act the P
requires the president to separate
personal documents from presidential
records before leaving office that's the
law the P makes clear that upon the
conclusion of the president's term in
office Nara the National Archives
assumes responsibility for the custody
control preservation of and access to
the records of a president president
that is the
law the P makes the legal status of
presidential records clear and
unambiguous providing that the United
States reserves and retains complete
ownership possession and control of
presidential records friends that is the
law and
importantly the presidential records act
defines what constitutes presidential
records and what are personal
records personal records include Diaries
journals or other personal notes serving
as the functional equivalent of a diary
or
journal the president does not have
discretion to categorize a presidential
record as a personal record and yes
friends that is the
law in plain English
you know easy to understand
unmistakable That's the
Law
now let's turn to judge Cannon's very
short order directing the parties to
engage in these
two jury instructions that judge Canon
made up out of whole
cloth in the case of United States of
America versus Donald Trump wal NAA and
Carlos De ala
defendants this new order is titled
order requiring preliminary proposed
jury instructions and verdict forms on
counts 1 through 32 only those are the
Espionage charges Donald Trump is
indicted on 32 counts of violating our
nation's Espionage
laws let's look at the relevant part of
this
order judge Cannon Direct that the
parties must engage with the following
competing scenarios and offer
alternative draft text that assumes each
scenario to be a correct formulation of
the law to be issued to the jury while
reserving counterarguments the problem
is she's asking the parties to assume
that these scenarios are a correct
formulation of the law and friends you
don't have to be a lawyer based on what
we just reviewed what the presidential
records act provides for you're going to
see these are not correct formulations
of the
law here's the first proposed
instruction in a prosecution of a former
president for allegedly retaining
documents in violation of 18 us code
section
793 that's the Espionage Act it's the
crime of willful retention of National
Defense information
a jury is permitted to examine a record
retained by a former president in his or
her personal possession at the end of
his or her presidency and make a factual
finding as to whether the government has
proven Beyond a reasonable doubt that it
is personal or
presidential using the definition set
forth in the presidential records act no
that's not the law that's not the
presidential records act as it is on the
federal books I just read it to
you a personal record is something like
a diary or a journal Donald Trump stole
classified
documents National Security Secrets
National Defense information like you
heard him talking about on that audio
recording made at his New Jersey Golf
Club Bedminster where he was talking to
people in the room who had no security
clearances after he left the presidency
he said look at this look at this do you
see this this was prepared for me by the
military this talks about a contingency
plan to um militarily strike Iran look
at this can you believe
this the jury has no business friends I
use that as a an example the jury has no
business deciding well let me look at
the record and see if it's personal or
presidential no that's not what the
presidential records act provides so the
jury has no business even being
instructed this way because it is
contrary to the
law here is the second proposed
instruction by judge
Canon a president has sole Authority
under the P to categorize records as
personal or presidential during his or
her presidency that's
wrong neither a court nor a jury is
permitted to make or review such a
categorization decision although there
is no formal means in the pr by which a
president is to make that
categorization an outgoing president's
decision to exclude what he or she
considers to be personal records from
presidential records transmitted to the
National Archives and Records
Administration constitutes a president's
categorization of those records as
personal under the P friends this is not
a legal instruction to a jury this is a
judge basically announcing that Donald
Trump is not
guilty because this is an unreviewable
decision ision so if he happened to
telepathically think that everything
I've taken all of the National Defense
information all of the classified
documents all of our nation's Secrets if
he took it all then he was entitled to
take it all and the jury has no
authority to second guess him that's why
this is insane; this is crazy; this is
nuts. This is not a legal instruction.
This is not in an instruction of law.
This is an instruction contrary to
existing law the presidential records
act and it's virtually a judge
announcing to the jury that you don't
even get to weigh in because Donald
Trump is not guilty based on what I'm
telling you right here I don't even know
why she would be instructing the jury on
this she would just dismiss the
case you know friends I was half
expecting to see a third proposed
instruction where judge Cannon would you
know purport to instruct the jury and by
the way ladies and gentlemen of the jury
this entire prosecution is a Witch
Hunt because in
substance that's sort of what she's
signaling in these first two jury
instructions that are contrary to the
law now what can be done about this well
as I said at the beginning of this video
emotion to remove her from the case a
motion to
recuse has to be filed and litigated and
and let the chips fall if the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals says no
everything she's done is fine well not
everything she's done is fine because
remember that the 11 circuit court of
appeals has already reversed her twice
earlier when the investigation into
Trump's crimes was ongoing before he was
indicted remember how she stepped in and
interfered in the ongoing investigation
after the FBI had secured a search
warrant and seized the evidence of crime
from Mara Lago the classified documents
that Donald Trump was hoarding and
refusing to uh return after they'd been
subpoenaed by a grand jury as part of a
criminal investigation remember what
judge Cannon did she swooped in
appointed a special master and told the
Department of Justice to stop
investigating these documents and the
potential crimes of Donald Trump in the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals three
judge panel including I believe two
Trump appointed judges reversed her and
said you abused your judicial discretion
to the extreme benefit of Donald Trump
you interfered in an ongoing doj
investigation you can't do that you are
reversed so we know that not everything
she's
done um has been on the up and up has
been in accordance with the law she's
done enormous favors for Donald Trump
by violating her judicial discretion by
doing something the law did not allow
and here she goes
again so a motion to recuse a motion to
remove her can and should be filed and
litigated and we will live with the 11
circuit court of appeals decision on
whether any of this can
stand but what Jack Smith shouldn't do
in my humble opinion and in my
experience as a former career prosecutor
is feed the monster you can't feed the
monster when a judge is acting lawlessly
when a judge has shown herself to be
either incompetent or biased in favor of
the defendant or both you don't feed the
monster by just plowing
forward yes I know prosecutors are
loathed to antagonize judges by filing
motions to kick them off a case but
could judge Cannon be any more
antagonistic to the cause of
Justice could she be any more
antagonistic to the people's right to a
fair trial the way she continues to side
with Donald Trump in ways that are
previously according to the appell at
court abuses of her judicial discretion
and here she goes again you can't feed
the monster you've got to starve the
monster you've got to take the monster
on using all legal Avenues available
motion to rec accuse or remove petition
for a RIT of mandamus to get the appell
at court to tell her to do her job in a
lawful way not a lawless way because you
don't want to look back at the end of
this case with Donald Trump having had
all of his charges dismissed by judge
aen cannon in a way that was clearly
biased and not in keeping with the
applicable laws
and
say should have filed a motion to
recuse should have done more I shouldn't
have just kept feeding the
monster act
now litigate the motion to remove her in
the full light of day let the chips fall
and we the people will live with the
consequences but you've got to take this
on you can't avoid this battle
because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
[Music]

**************************

Judge in Trump classified documents case proposes 'insane' jury instructions, experts say: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon proposed to instruct jurors a president has sole authority to declare records personal, which legal experts say would amount to dismissing the case against Trump.
by Bart Jansen
USA TODAY
March 18, 2024
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 027873007/

The judge presiding over charges against former President Donald Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving the White House proposed on Monday jury instructions for the eventual trial that favor his claim that he declassified the records.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s proposal tips the scales so far in Trump’s direction that legal experts say the prosecutor, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, might ask an appeals court to remove her from the case.

Joyce White Vance, a former U.S. attorney, said the Presidential Records Act isn’t a way around rules for handling classified documents because the records are still government property, not Trump’s personal possessions.

“Expect their response to be hard-hitting,” Vance said of prosecutors in a post on Substack. “The bottom line is that the Presidential Records Act doesn’t forgive Trump for violating criminal laws regarding handling of national secrets.”

Cannon proposed jury instructions for Trump's lawyers, prosecutors to 'engage'

Cannon gave lawyers for Trump and Smith until April 2 to submit proposed jury instructions for the eventual trial. The order on Monday came after a hearing in which she didn’t resolve the dispute over whether the documents fell under the Presidential Records Act.

But her order called for lawyers on both sides to “engage” with two possible instructions she proposed.

In one, Cannon said jurors should “make a factual finding as to whether the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt” the records are personal or presidential.

In the other, Cannon proposed telling jurors “a president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such as categorization decision.”

Cannon's proposed jury instructions 'insane' and 'crazy': legal experts

Legal experts blasted the order as “insane” and “nuts.”

“This second scenario is legally insane,” and under it Cannon could simply dismiss the charges, said Bradley Moss, a national-security lawyer.

George Conway, another lawyer and frequent critic of Trump, argued Cannon shouldn’t be hearing the case and shouldn’t even be a federal judge. Cannon was appointed by Trump and has been widely criticized for decisions that have delayed the trial, including two overturned by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This is utterly nuts,” Conway said.

Vance said both proposals from Cannon "virtually direct the jury to find Trump not guilty."

“It turns out it’s two pages of crazy stemming from the Judge’s apparent inability to tell Trump no when it comes to his argument that he turned the nation’s secrets into his personal records by designating them as such under the Presidential Records Act,” Vance said.

What is the Presidential Records Act?

The Presidential Records Act designates all presidential records public property to be stored at the National Archives. Exceptions are made for personal documents such as birthday cards a president receives while in office.

Trump is charged with retaining about 100 national defense documents dealing with secrets such as defense and weapons capabilities of U.S. and foreign countries, and U.S. nuclear programs, and then conspiring to hide them at his club Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The FBI seized them among thousands of other records during a search in August 2022.

Trump has argued repeatedly that he could take records with him after leaving the White House, despite the Presidential Records Act giving ownership to the National Archives and Records Administration.

In arguing the case should be dismissed, Trump contends he designated the classified records personal before leaving the White House. Trump contends that courts can’t review his decisions over what records were personal, which he could keep, and which were official, which he would have to give the National Archives. The Presidential Records Act makes disputes about the records subject to civil litigation rather than through criminal charges

Trump also argued he declassified them, despite producing no documentation for his assertion. In fact, Trump was recorded in a 2021 meeting saying he kept “secret” military information that he had not declassified.

“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump said, according to the transcript obtained by CNN.

Appeals court called Trump's declassification argument a 'red herring'

Legal experts expect Smith to appeal the jury instructions to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if Cannon adopts what she has proposed. Her order seems to convey the same misunderstanding of the Presidential Records Act as when the 11th Circuit overturned her order for a third-party review of the records.

Cannon had ordered a special master, a retired federal judge, to review the records seized at Mar-a-Lago to determine whether they fell under the Presidential Records Act. Prosecutors had to halt their investigation awaiting the results.

But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit unanimously halted the review by calling Trump’s argument that he declassified the documents so that they fell under the Presidential Records Act a “red herring” because the change wouldn’t have made the government records personal.

“The declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal,” the appeals panel wrote. “So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.”

Moss said if Cannon adopts the jury instructions as she proposed them, Smith could appeal to the 11th Circuit “for a quick reversal.”