The judge in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case is drawing more scowls for allowing outside parties to argue in a hearing to dismiss the proceedings against the ex-president.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who has frequently been accused of partiality toward the former president, issued a paperless order on Tuesday allowing lawyers Josh Blackman, Gene Schaerr and Matthew Seligman to make oral arguments in a June 21 hearing to consider a motion to dismiss Trump’s 40 federal felony charges.
All three lawyers are experts in constitutional law who filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs regarding the motion to dismiss. Schaerr and Blackman are representing groups that want the case against the former president to be dismissed, while Seligman is representing groups that say the case should continue.
Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg told Newsweek via social media direct message on Tuesday that Cannon’s decision was “highly unusual,” while arguing that “most” judges would have already rejected the dismissal motion’s claim that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was illegal.
“She’s allowing non-parties to participate in oral argument, which is highly unusual,” Aronberg wrote. “They are usually just allowed to submit briefs as amici curiae … Very unusual. Especially for the claim that the special counsel is unconstitutional. Most other judges would have dismissed these claims already.”
Several other legal experts also criticized Cannon’s decision on Tuesday in posts to X, formerly Twitter.
“Judge Cannon is an absolute hack. This is entirely unnecessary,” Georgia State University constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis wrote in response to an automated post on Cannon’s order.
“I don’t even know what to do with this,” wrote Chris “Law Dork” Geidner.
Lawyer Bradley P. Moss responded to Cannon’s order by sharing an animated image of the sociopathic character The Joker, as portrayed by deceased actor Heath Ledger, saying, “yea ok.”
“Cannon is just flailing and has no idea which way is up at this point,” lawyer and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa wrote.
University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky wrote the following of Cannon’s decision: “What a total rambling s*** show.”
Regardless of the outcome of the June 21 hearing, the fate of Trump’s documents case is unclear due to Cannon indefinitely postponing the trial earlier this year. All charges will likely be dropped against Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, if he wins the election in November.
The documents case is one of two pending criminal cases that emerged last year from the investigations by Smith. Trump also faces federal felony charges in a Washington, D.C.-based case concerning 2020 election interference, while a separate state-level election subversion case remains active in Georgia.
Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime last week when a New York jury found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to boost his 2016 election chances by concealing hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.
Trump maintains his innocence in all cases and insists that he is the victim of “persecution” and a “witch hunt” that he claims is being orchestrated by Democrats.
Read the full article here
