As criticism, disappointment, and sheer, unfettered anger from the American public rapidly mounts over Judge Aileen Cannon’s head, the New York Times has released an expansive and frankly damning new analysis of the Trump-appointed U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge, exposing her for what she truly is behind closed doors — “prickly,” “insecure,” “confused,” and struggles to grasp even the most basic understanding of the law, forcing attorneys from both sides of this case to “slowly” explain things to her over and over again.
Judge Cannon has been steeped in controversy since the moment she was appointed to Donald Trump’s infamous stolen government documents case that’s being prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and the US Department of Justice — due in large part to the fact that she was appointed to the bench by the very same man who’s on trial. Throughout this entire case, Cannon has all but proven those accusations against her to be correct, as she has repeatedly delivered rulings, orders, and opinions that have been blatantly slanted in Donald Trump’s favor. She has repeatedly been accused of intentionally slow-walking this case, with one of her most recent rulings essentially halting the entire thing indefinitely.
However, in the opinion of New York Times’ Alan Feuer, much of Cannon’s actions and decisions may not actually come down to a proclivity for the scandal-plagued former president, at least, not entirely, and may have more to do with Cannon’s failure to understand the laws that she’s been tasked with upholding.
Feuer reveals in his expansive new report that Cannon has forced attorneys for both sides to repeat their points over and over again during several recent hearings because in Feuer’s opinion, “she does not understand the answers she is receiving or is trying to push back against them.”
Stay up-to-date with the latest news!
Subscribe and start recieving our daily emails.
The NYT analyst points to one recent incident, in particular: “At last week’s hearing, she did this to Stanley Woodward Jr., Mr. Nauta’s lawyer, as she considered his request to order prosecutors to provide him with internal communications that could help support his claims that the case against his client had been brought vindictively… When Judge Cannon asked Mr. Woodward what he actually wanted from the government, his answer seemed simple enough: any messages exchanged by prosecutors that mentioned his name.”
Feuer writes that Cannon asked the question yet again, and instructed Woodward to explain his answer “slowly.”
“Even after that, it seemed that she was still a bit confused,” the new analysis reads before going on to note that this is far from the only example in which Aileen Cannon has appeared to be in way over her head.
In fact, just moments after the above example, Feuer writes that prosecutor David Harbach was asked to discuss Woodward’s request, and once again had to further elaborate for her, “But Judge Cannon seemed to miss his point.”
The analysis goes on to add that Harbach grew visibly frustrated when Cannon proceeded to ask for a third time, forcing Harbach to say “as plainly as he could that Mr. Woodward’s request had no basis in either fact or law,” before loudly stating, “This is what I’m trying to tell you.”
This minor outburst of frustration prompted Cannon to chastise Harbach, warning the attorney to “calm down.”
Feuer notes that this particular exchange is “emblematic” of the ongoing struggles attorneys are facing with the relatively newly appointed Judge Cannon who, frankly, has absolutely no business overseeing a case of this magnitude.
Read Feuer’s full New York Times analysis here.
Featured image via screen capture
