Judge Cannon Set Multiple Hearings on Constitutional Issues and the Lawfare Blob Is Big Mad
Folks firmly in the anti-Trump camp are up in arms (again) over another ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Cannon issued an order setting forth the schedule for hearings related to one of the legal issues raised by the defense in the case, namely, whether the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith is invalid.
Judge Aileen Cannon is again ripping up the court schedule in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case – pushing some of the legal questions that have been before her for months even further down the road.
Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid, signaling she could be more willing than any other trial judge to veto the special prosecutor’s authority.
The planned hearing also adds a new, unusual twist in the federal criminal case against the former president: Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the oral arguments later this month.
In case it isn't abundantly clear from the above paragraphs, CNN DOES. NOT. APPROVE. (And they're not alone — do a quick Google search of "Cannon" under the News tab, and you'll be treated to a number of tongue-clucking headlines about the judge's most recent orders regarding the matter.)
11th CCA Says It's Over the 'Orchestrated Complaints' Against Judge Cannon
DENIED: Judge Cannon Shoots Down Jack Smith's Request for Gag Order
As a little bit of background: In February, Trump's legal team filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the creation of the special counsel's office violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the funding of it violated the Appropriations Clause. On Tuesday, Cannon entered an order allowing for Josh Blackman (Landmark Legal Foundation), Gene C. Schaerr (representing former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson*, and Citizens United), and Matthew Seligman (State Democracy Defenders Action) to appear on behalf of amici curiae ("friend(s) of the court" — not actual parties to the litigation) and present oral argument on the Appointments Clause issue.
The order, which may be viewed in full below, sets out the following schedule for the hearings in question:
- June 21 - Argument on the Appointments Clause challenge, including from the parties and from amici
- June 24 - Morning - Argument on the Appropriations Clause challenge as raised in Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith
- June 24 - Afternoon - Argument on the Special Counsel's Motion to Modify Trump's Conditions of Release
- June 25 - Argument on Trump's Motion for Relief Related to Mar-a-Lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege
In addition, due to the new schedule for the hearings, Cannon is pushing back the planned multi-day hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery to a later date. All of which has the anti-Trump brigade squawking over the undue delay. (Never mind the significance and unprecedented nature of the case.)
These arguments (and the court's eventual ruling on the issues) will be interesting, so stay tuned.
Post a Comment