A retired federal judge says Judge Cannon appears to show 'favoritism' toward Trump
Category: News & Politics
Via: hallux • 4 months ago • 32 commentsBy: Scott Detrow, Tyler Bartlam - NPR
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, continues to make decisions that puzzle many legal observers.
Last month, Cannon delayed the start of the trial indefinitely . She's taken months to make routine procedural decisions .
Trump is charged with taking classified and top-secret material with him to Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House and then taking part in a conspiracy to hide documents from federal investigators.
The Trump's Trials team wanted to know how someone who has served on the federal bench views Cannon’s decisions, so we called retired federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, she served as a federal judge for over two decades.
NPR reached out to Judge Cannon’s office for a response and received a statement from her court that their judges do not comment on pending cases.
Interview highlights
Scott Detrow: What is the main thing that has stood out to you about how Judge Cannon has handled this case, as you've observed?
Shira Scheindlin: The main thing that stood out to me is how she has constantly caused delay in the case instead of moving it forward. She's done that in, I would say, two ways. One is her inability to rule in an efficient manner. She holds onto motions. She keeps them pending. She can't seem to decide things. Most experienced judges, which of course I considered myself after 27 years, try to know which motions really require further consideration and argument and which, you know, instinctively you could say frankly, one word: denied. And you can rule from the bench.
The second thing that stands out to me is what appears to me to be her dislike of the government and her favoritism toward the defense. I'm not saying that that's going to, in the end, determine how she rules on everything, but she seems to have a visceral dislike of Jack Smith and his team. She's constantly criticizing them. She's constantly being sharp and sarcastic with them, and she almost never treats the defense that way.
Detrow: I want to ask about the decision-making — the first thing you talked about. Because a lot has been said in this trial that's about classified documents, about the fact that classified documents cases are going to take longer than other types of cases because there are big weighted questions that have to be sorted through in terms of the procedure and how things are going to be introduced in the eventual trial. You're saying it's beyond that scope — that it's just a lot of basic questions coming her way that she has not answered, that you think is striking?
Scheindlin: I am saying that when you have a case that involves highly classified documents, it is more complex to review those documents. They have to be done in a safe space. So it's complicated, I understand that. But that's not a full defense of how long it's taking her to move this case forward. While it is complicated, it's been done many times. She's just been inefficient.
Detrow: We all know that President Trump's legal strategy involves delaying this case with the hope that, if he's elected president again, he would be able to end the case against him. From everything you've seen, do you have a gut feeling as to whether or not this is an experience issue with Judge Cannon or whether or not this is a finger on the scale, to try to help those delays?
Scheindlin: I'm not so sure that those are two different choices. They may be combined in her mind. I think she is inexperienced and I think it makes her insecure in her rulings. She's tentative. But the motivation may be mixed in with intentionally delaying enough to make sure this doesn't go before the election. I'm not saying there's a bad motive for that. There have been some commentators who say, you know, if he's president, he'll elevate her to a higher court and all that. I don't see that that would look like a quid pro quo.
But maybe she just says, "This can wait until after the election. I don't want this to affect the election, so I'm going to take my time." It may be intentional — I don't have a sense of that — but I do have a sense that she's inexperienced and insecure.
Detrow: What do you think the appropriate way is to treat a criminal defendant in your courtroom who's a former president of the United States and is running for president again? Do you think a judge in this position should be thinking about the fact that there is an election? And do the American people deserve a verdict before that election, or is that just something that's not material in a criminal courtroom to you?
Scheindlin: I don't think it's material to me. I think you do your job. So when I think of Judge Merchan , I don't think he was trying to rush it to get it done before the election so the electorate would know whether this guy is a felon or not a felon. And I'm not sure he's intentionally going slow to avoid the public knowing. It's just that one knows how to run a criminal trial because he's experienced and a good, organized judge, and one seems to not. But that said, you never know what's in the back of somebody’s mind. I think it's more a matter of knowing how to run a complex trial.
Detrow: I'm wondering how worried you are at this moment about the rule of law in this country and the different ways it's being attacked from all directions. You have a former president saying it's a rigged system , it's a political system, that people are trying to charge him with crimes to prevent him from being president. You have a lot of liberal leaning voters in this country who are deeply cynical about the U.S. Supreme Court. You have a president's son just convicted in another federal courthouse and then all sorts of Republican criticism there. I feel like every direction you're coming from, there are serious, real critiques about the rule of law in this country, right or wrong. And I'm wondering how worried you are, in this country that's based on the rule of law, about all of these partisan criticisms at this moment?
Scheindlin: I think the partisan criticism has affected the public's perception of the validity of the court system. I think they've lost a lot of faith in this U.S. Supreme Court because of what has been disclosed about Justice Alito and Justice Thomas . But the system has actually worked quite well in the sense of the trial on the hush money case and in the Hunter Biden case. I might not have agreed with either outcome, but the jury system worked and made a decision and everybody is treated the same and that's a good thing, whether your last name is Biden or your last name is Trump.
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
No, justice is not 2-tiered, it's multi-tiered and rancid with confusion.
You got that right, Judge Merchan being a recent best example of showing downright favoritism for the Bragg's prosecution of Trump.
Merchan was not confused, for that lay the blame at Trump and his obsequious lawyers. There have been far too many legal failures on Trump's side for you to wilfully ignore.
Too many reversible errors for the verdict to stand.
Reversible Errors - The American Mind
Bragg’s thrill kill in Manhattan could prove short-lived on appeal (thehill.com)
Nonsense
You are correct, "Merchan was not confused" he was a partisan POS that refused to uphold any semblance of the law or courtroom decorum.
She did object- Merchan over ruled her- and did so several other times as well.
Merchan is the picture of a calm and rational judge./S
Merchan is no expert in federal election laws. So of course he sure as hell didn't want someone testifying who was. It would have completely destroyed the prosecution's case.
We shall see, but I would not hang my hat on wishful 'Heritage' thinking.
the great white maga savior got his mushroom sauteed for 90 seconds...
Those of us Canadians who are or have been involved with the workings of the legal system thank God that the magistrates, judges and Justices in Canada have been and are squeeky clean, absolutely angels in comparison with the corruption and bias of so many of those in America. If any were proved to have committed the least degree of such bias or corruption they would be booted out of the whole legal system immediately, and in all my years of practice I never heard of one such incident. Of course the bias and corruption are defended by those who are biased on whichever side is accused, as you can see right here on NT. Bias bias bias bias.....
Lol. The judges can’t be questioned or you hate the rule of law era lasted about three weeks.
Or one just tosses 'lawfare' at everything in some vapid attempt at revelency.
the rocket circuit already has a judge familiarizing themself with the case for when she's taken off it...
So she isn't following the leftist script of rushing to judgement and making horrendous decisions.
She is actually holding the federal government accountable for violating the same procedures of handling classified information they are charging Trump with. She is actually looking at if Smith was even appointed legally by Garland.
We all know the TDS driven want Trump tried and convicted. Legality doesn't matter to them.
Trump is entitled to the same protections under the Constitution as everyone else. Including the appeals process.
Maybe if Democrats would actually start following the Constitution and our laws shit like this wouldn't happen.
SSDD for Democrats/leftists.
Yes, yes, Hans von Spakovsky being a fervent parrot is inline for a plush job in any 'future' Trump administration.
You think Merchan hasn't been moved up the Democrat ranks for running a partisan kangaroo court?
Better him than the Spas guy.
She's in his back pocket. She's looking for a higher court appointment
Seems leftists don't like it when rulings don't go their way. Hence trying to stack the SC with far leftists so they would never lose another case.
I haven't noticed any stacking that did not have Trump's and McConnell's fingerprints all over it.
First, I would like for you to look up the definition of "stacking".
Second, point out the proof of which you claim.[✘]
I will respond simply as it behooves nothing to go into detail ... here we go: If SCOTUS was 6-3 democrat choices you would be bitching about a stacked court.
Feel free to insert one of your standard responses ... @!@
No, because I know the definition of stacked.
Now, for one of my "standard responses"
You are wrong yet again.
Cockroaches.
every single right wing extremist on the court - plus their enablers McConnell and #34 - lifelong cockroach
Ah, something you share with Trump, how Stormy of you both.
[✘]
[✘]
The Court has had a 5-4 conservative balance for 90 years.
I can't really remember Eisenhower but every POTUS in my long life time has diligently tried to maintain that balance until Trump. Republicans and Democrats alike nominating moderates because they all realized that a balanced approach will prolong the Republic. The Senate routinely weeded out the outliers and liars.
A system of checks and balances as opposed to being stacked by like minded ideologies that will tear down and reverse decades of moderate jurisprudence, just "because".
Roberts get it.
You do not.
So what?
From someone famous recently
"Elections have consequences"
"You do not."
Only the far left wing mind tries to read the mind of another.
Look at the last sentence in 5.1.3
It is for you too.
You have shoveled that stupid retort here for years,
many times in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I'll let you know when I give shit about your very high opinion of your own thoughts.
How about we all take these talking head opinions with a little salt and let the system play itself out. If Merchan did wrong, the verdict will be overturned. If Cannon is showing too much favoritism to Trump, then Smith can appeal rulings too. Everyone places way too much emphasis on the partisan bubble reports.
Amen