When this ruling was announced those of us who follow the cases from a legal viewpoint were confused. Thanks to this post we no longer are.
It is now clear that this judge has animus towards the case. This may be because of favoritism to Trump, but it may also be because she sincerely doubts the government's position, or simply doesn't want to be involved in a high profile case. But it does not, as the post points out, bode well for the administration of justice.
* In her first substantive order in the documents case last August (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.29.0_9.pdf), she announce her "preliminary intent to appoint a special master...." Not only was this before the government had had the opportunity to weigh in -- if memory serves this was before Trump had even successfully served notice to the government of the lawsuit.
“ '[T]he [G]overnment chose to proceed by securing a search warrant for [the former President’s home and office] and seeking and obtaining [a] magistrate judge’s approval of the [f]ilter [p]rotocol. The [G]overnment should have been fully aware that use of a filter team in these circumstances was ripe for substantial legal challenges, and should have anticipated that those challenges could delay its investigations.' In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3rd at 181."
The reader may be unsurprised to learn that the cited ruling did not use the words "the former President's home and office" -- rather "the Law Firm" appears in this location in the original.
Is this not bizarre? First, it is obvious why a special master would be likely to be used in the case of a raid of a law firm, which is not at all like Mar-a-Lago under the law. Secondly, you can't just put any words you want in square brackets--particularly in a court order!! Rather, you are supposed to only use words that preserve the original meaning of the citation. I would think that any law-school graduate, any clerk for a federal judge, and certainly any federal judge would know this.
The thing is a Garcia hearing while perfunctory is not really necessary in this situation. The subject Defendant would have been copiously warned by his attorneys of the potential conflict and probably would have had to sign a waiver which any competent attorney would have insisted upon before representation. The Gov't team is smart enough to know this. Heck, I am even smart enough to know this.
So the whole thing should have proceeded unnoticed except for the Judge's blatant interference in the process. One wonders if the Govt deliberately filed their Garcia request to test the Judge. If so she badly failed that test.
Last night on MSNBC Andrew Weissman noted that this strange stuff relating to the out-of-district grand jury came a day AFTER one of Trump's TV lawyers whined on TV about using a DC grand jury to investigate stuff in Florida. He wondered (with a lot of eye rolling) if Judge "Loose" Cannon decided to invite the defendants to raise this issue after hearing Trump's lawyer raise it.
Thanks for this, Adam. Much more thorough than any of the big time newspapers. Despite what you write, I'm finding it very hard to accept that she's acting in good faith. Hope the 11th finds a way to remove her.
The problem with your argument about Judge Loosey Cannon is that she IS a "MAGA judge" and IS working to help Trump. That is objective fact, not opinion. She took this "order" directly from hearing one of Trump's former lawyers make it on TV over the weekend.
Assuming good faith from pretty much anyone in government is a grave error these days. Should we pretend we think that Judge Cannon is in good faith when we strongly suspect that she isn't?
The suspicion I just expressed is a result of the fact that the rue of law has been corroded, not a cause of that.
Alito said about the same thing: people who called the Court or any of its members into question were [doing something very bad, forget just what he said]. But he was picking it up from the wrong end. He was saying that because of his high position, people should never doubt him about anything and that he should get a free ride. The right end is to say that because of his high position, he should take care to remain above suspicion (Caesar's wife, etc.)
Did this disgraceful bimbo (Cannon) actually get a law degree?? We all knew she was an unqualified partisan hack (as most of Cheetolini's appointee are), but she seems to be going out of her way to prove her incompetence (better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt . . .). Sad . . .
One thought: I understand that DOJ is not supposed to continue to "investigate" the alleged crimes once the charges have been filed against the defendants. As i understand it, though, the rule does not preclude DOJ from continuing to investigate other charges and crimes, or crimes committed in other jurisdictions. Perhaps she is just assuming that DOJ is violating this principle?
Thank you for this insightful post. Could you write a post about whether there is a procedure for the circuit court to reassign this case to a different judge, and what would the justice department need to prove in order for this to happen? Does it all hinge on Judge Cannon volunteering to recuse? Because I don’t think she’ll do that.
When this ruling was announced those of us who follow the cases from a legal viewpoint were confused. Thanks to this post we no longer are.
It is now clear that this judge has animus towards the case. This may be because of favoritism to Trump, but it may also be because she sincerely doubts the government's position, or simply doesn't want to be involved in a high profile case. But it does not, as the post points out, bode well for the administration of justice.
Cannon behaves more like a co-conspirator rather than a Federal Judge.
It's baffling.
This judge is in way over her head.
Weirdness, thy name is Judge Cannon.
Consider:
* In her first substantive order in the documents case last August (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.29.0_9.pdf), she announce her "preliminary intent to appoint a special master...." Not only was this before the government had had the opportunity to weigh in -- if memory serves this was before Trump had even successfully served notice to the government of the lawsuit.
* In her subsequent key order in that case (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22275110-read-judges-ruling-on-special-master-for-trump-mar-a-lago-documents), Judge Cannon made the following bizarre statement (beginning at p. 22):
“ '[T]he [G]overnment chose to proceed by securing a search warrant for [the former President’s home and office] and seeking and obtaining [a] magistrate judge’s approval of the [f]ilter [p]rotocol. The [G]overnment should have been fully aware that use of a filter team in these circumstances was ripe for substantial legal challenges, and should have anticipated that those challenges could delay its investigations.' In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3rd at 181."
The reader may be unsurprised to learn that the cited ruling did not use the words "the former President's home and office" -- rather "the Law Firm" appears in this location in the original.
Is this not bizarre? First, it is obvious why a special master would be likely to be used in the case of a raid of a law firm, which is not at all like Mar-a-Lago under the law. Secondly, you can't just put any words you want in square brackets--particularly in a court order!! Rather, you are supposed to only use words that preserve the original meaning of the citation. I would think that any law-school graduate, any clerk for a federal judge, and certainly any federal judge would know this.
The thing is a Garcia hearing while perfunctory is not really necessary in this situation. The subject Defendant would have been copiously warned by his attorneys of the potential conflict and probably would have had to sign a waiver which any competent attorney would have insisted upon before representation. The Gov't team is smart enough to know this. Heck, I am even smart enough to know this.
So the whole thing should have proceeded unnoticed except for the Judge's blatant interference in the process. One wonders if the Govt deliberately filed their Garcia request to test the Judge. If so she badly failed that test.
And what about her footnote almost inviting a 12(b) motion to dismiss? That's almost the worst part in its gratuitousness
Last night on MSNBC Andrew Weissman noted that this strange stuff relating to the out-of-district grand jury came a day AFTER one of Trump's TV lawyers whined on TV about using a DC grand jury to investigate stuff in Florida. He wondered (with a lot of eye rolling) if Judge "Loose" Cannon decided to invite the defendants to raise this issue after hearing Trump's lawyer raise it.
Thanks for this, Adam. Much more thorough than any of the big time newspapers. Despite what you write, I'm finding it very hard to accept that she's acting in good faith. Hope the 11th finds a way to remove her.
Goodness! Thank you for this. It’s the kind of legal analysis Judge Cannon should have done before she issued her ruling.
The problem with your argument about Judge Loosey Cannon is that she IS a "MAGA judge" and IS working to help Trump. That is objective fact, not opinion. She took this "order" directly from hearing one of Trump's former lawyers make it on TV over the weekend.
Assuming good faith from pretty much anyone in government is a grave error these days. Should we pretend we think that Judge Cannon is in good faith when we strongly suspect that she isn't?
The suspicion I just expressed is a result of the fact that the rue of law has been corroded, not a cause of that.
Alito said about the same thing: people who called the Court or any of its members into question were [doing something very bad, forget just what he said]. But he was picking it up from the wrong end. He was saying that because of his high position, people should never doubt him about anything and that he should get a free ride. The right end is to say that because of his high position, he should take care to remain above suspicion (Caesar's wife, etc.)
Did this disgraceful bimbo (Cannon) actually get a law degree?? We all knew she was an unqualified partisan hack (as most of Cheetolini's appointee are), but she seems to be going out of her way to prove her incompetence (better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt . . .). Sad . . .
One thought: I understand that DOJ is not supposed to continue to "investigate" the alleged crimes once the charges have been filed against the defendants. As i understand it, though, the rule does not preclude DOJ from continuing to investigate other charges and crimes, or crimes committed in other jurisdictions. Perhaps she is just assuming that DOJ is violating this principle?
Thank you for this insightful post. Could you write a post about whether there is a procedure for the circuit court to reassign this case to a different judge, and what would the justice department need to prove in order for this to happen? Does it all hinge on Judge Cannon volunteering to recuse? Because I don’t think she’ll do that.
Love the SNL reference!
Should we assume that Jack Smith will immediately appeal to the 11th circuit?