The Left Unfairly Defames “Judge Trump” in Classified Documents Case

Politicians, the press and pundits are going crazy over Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal judge who presided over the Florida trial against former President Donald Trump. There is a torrent of blockbuster articles and mean-spirited attacks on virtually every media platform.

What is impressive is the total lack of awareness of the hypocrisy of these attacks. Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times and other media outlets collapsed when someone criticized Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan in another Trump case.

In 2020, Judge Cannon was confirmed in a bipartisan vote, with the support of liberals such as Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat of Vermont) and Dianne Feinstein (Democrat of California).

Today, she is denounced as a “partisan and petty prima donna, “wacky, crazy, crazy, crazy, ridiculous and extravagant” and as a “right-wing hack.” From the descriptions in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and virtually every major media outlet, one would think that Cannon was a monster in the courtroom, raving uncontrollably at any passerby.

These critics often point out that she is a Trump appointee, even though many Trump appointees have spoken out against the former president on 2020 election issues. And these same figures have denounced Trump for attacking perceived political bias Democratic candidates in some of its cases.

Cannon was selected at random, unlike Merchan, who was handpicked to judge Trump even though he is a political donor to President Joe Biden and has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative.

Yet these same figures denounced those who questioned Merchan’s refusal to step down or criticized his decisions against Trump throughout the trial.

In reality, the “cowardly” version of Cannon is completely disconnected from his actual decisions.

She ruled for and against both parties on major issues. That includes rejecting major motions filed by the Trump team and, more recently, challenging Trump’s lawyers over their claims that the special counsel is part of a “shadow government.”

Notably, when Cannon recently denied the Trump team’s primary motion to dismiss, the Washington Post buried that fact in an article titled “Judge Cannon Strikes Paragraph in Trump’s Classified Document Indictment.” The suggestion was that deleting a single paragraph was more newsworthy than insisting that Trump be tried on these charges. (The article also acknowledges that the deletion of this single paragraph “has no substantial effect on the case.”)

Most recently, the left expressed horror that Judge Cannon allowed Team Trump to make a point of constitutional law in a hearing.

Scholars and former prosecutors (including former attorneys general) have argued that the appointment of special counsel like Smith is unconstitutional.

This is a new and intriguing constitutional objection that relies on the text of the Constitution, which requires that top executives, like U.S. attorneys, be appointed by statute or appointed by the president (and confirmed by the Senate).

Yet after the Independent Counsel Act expired in June 1999, the Justice Department claimed the right to take any private citizen like Smith and effectively give him greater authority than a U.S. attorney.

This glaring inconsistency has led to a number of challenges. So far, they have been unsuccessful, but none have been taken to the Supreme Court. Cannon wanted to hear oral arguments before ruling on the issue.

The move sent politicians and journalists into a new frenzy of faux outrage and indignation.

MSNBC legal analyst and New York University law professor Melissa Murray followed up with host Chris Hayes by telling Judge Cannon to “stay in his lane” and mocking his review of the constitutional claim:

“Girl, stay in your lane. Stay. In. Your. Way. So, yes, not only is the question of whether the special counsel conforms to the structures of constitutional law, but it has been settled. This issue has been addressed before several courts. Ruler. We don’t need to rehash this… If this were a real issue, it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, not a District Court judge in Fort Pierce, Florida.

This is a confusing conference. Cannon is precisely in her lane when she hears a claim without a supervisory authority. The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue and many lawyers have objected to the summary treatment of the application by other courts. The purpose of creating a docket is to allow for a full review that may well end up in the Supreme Court.

Who doesn’t stay in their lane? Cannon’s colleagues.

The New York Times recently reported that two judges tried to convince Cannon to give him the case even though it had been assigned to him randomly. So it appears that two of his colleagues violated any sense of collegiality and confidentiality to contribute to a hit article about Cannon.

It should be noted that there was no reason for Cannon to decline selection, especially not because of his nomination by Trump. Various Trump appointees have spoken out against Trump on issues without a single objection from the left.

While it’s true that Cannon was just named to the bench a few years ago, that doesn’t seem to bother these same experts in the Georgia case. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee was named to the bench shortly before being assigned the case Georgia v. Trump and his associates.

Cannon is a true American success story, and if only she decided in favor of the left, she would certainly be the subject of glowing stories about how she came from Cali, Colombia, to join the federal bench. Her mother fled Cuba after the revolution, and she grew up with a deep-rooted faith in the rule of law. She graduated from Duke University and, after a stint as a journalist, graduated from Michigan Law School magna cum laude.

Yet there will be no “American dream” stories for Cannon like the ones that presented themselves for Sonia Sotomayor after her nomination.

Cannon is a Republican and has the temerity to follow conservative jurisprudence. To the media, this makes her unworthy (much like the lack of coverage of the incredible life story of Justice Clarence Thomas).

The Scorched Earth campaign against Cannon is unlikely to succeed. When your family is fleeing communist Cuba and then drug-ravaged Cali, hit stories from partisan media are hardly intimidating.

This can be frustrating for many media outlets, but it fulfills the purpose of the Editors’ Article III. She will rule and she will not give in.

Jonathan Turley is the JB and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School. He is the author of “The essential right: freedom of expression in the age of anger » (Simon and Schuster, 2024).