In a recent Slate article titled “Judge Aileen Cannon Is Quietly Sabotaging the Trump Classified Documents Case,” former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut and renowned legal scholar Laurence Tribe raise concerns about District Judge Aileen Cannon’s impartiality in cases involving Donald Trump.
The article points out that Trump appointed Cannon to the bench in 2020, with her Senate confirmation coming just days after he lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. With Trump now embroiled in multiple legal issues, including allegations of obstructing justice and mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Aftergut and Tribe suggest that Cannon may be intervening in his favor.
Aftergut and Tribe criticize the idea of judges bending the law for those responsible for their appointments, asserting that Cannon’s actions seem to follow this pattern. They highlight a specific instance where Cannon rejected a request from special counsel Jack Smith, who inquired if Trump would rely on an “advice of counsel” defense in his upcoming trial on May 20. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Cannon’s refusal, according to Aftergut and Tribe, was based on the rationale that it was premature to consider this before resolving pretrial motions and further discovery. However, the authors argue that this decision is not as innocuous as it seems, suggesting it’s part of a broader strategy to delay Trump’s trial until after the election, potentially affecting its outcome.
Andrew Weissmann, a New York University law professor and former deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller, also expresses his view on the situation. He openly accuses Judge Cannon of bias in favor of Trump, reinforcing this claim with a statement on Twitter/X where he asserts that Cannon is “in the bag for Trump.” This sentiment adds to the growing concern about Cannon’s role in the ongoing legal proceedings against the former President.
