Judge Cannon ‘All But Brought the Case to a Grinding Halt’ Critiques Former Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner
(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, has expressed significant concerns over the handling of former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge in Florida. Kirschner harshly criticized the judge for what he described as effectively stalling the trial, thereby shielding Trump from legal scrutiny until after the upcoming election.
During a recent hearing, which Kirschner labeled as “rare,” he accused Judge Cannon of bringing the case “to a grinding halt,” casting doubts on the judicial process under her guidance. “Judge Cannon has no business presiding over this case. We the People deserve better,” Kirschner stated emphatically, reflecting his disapproval of how the proceedings are being managed.
The case in question involves charges against Trump for concealing highly classified national defense information at his Mar-a-Lago country club. Despite the apparent straightforward nature of the accusations, which is just one among several criminal cases Trump faces nationwide, Cannon’s approach has significantly delayed legal proceedings. Kirschner’s frustration was evident as he discussed the recent courtroom dynamics, which he described as a “shouting match” between counsel, further indicative of the tumultuous nature of the legal process in this instance.
Kirschner also voiced concerns over Cannon’s remarks during the proceedings, questioning the judge’s suitability for the case. “The American people are the victims of Donald Trump’s crimes, including espionage crimes, that undoubtedly did real and perhaps lasting damage to our national security, and a federal judge says, you know, I just wonder if a jury is even capable of deciding this case, what with all the nuances,” he quoted, perplexed by Cannon’s skepticism towards a jury’s ability to understand the case, reports Raw Story.
Delving deeper, Kirschner critiqued the defense strategies employed by Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta, describing them as “meritless.” Nauta’s claim of “selective prosecution” and Trump’s dismissal of the indictment as a “personal and political attack” were particularly singled out by Kirschner as inadequate and misguided. “It sounds like an angry tweet and deranged P.R. blather instead of a real legal argument,” Kirschner argued, emphasizing that the indictment clearly specifies the alleged crimes.
Despite proposals from both special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s attorneys for summer trial dates, Cannon has yet to schedule the trial. Kirschner attributed this delay to what he perceives as Cannon’s “sloth and neglect if not incompetence and nefariousness.” His final remarks underscored a deep dissatisfaction with the judge’s reluctance to dismiss unfounded claims, which he believes is tactically benefiting Trump by postponing the trial until after the election.
