The MAGA-friendly federal judge who keeps siding with Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago classified records case has forced prosecutors to make a stark choice: allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’sultimatum Monday night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers for proposed jury instructions at the upcoming trial.
But as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.
Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.
Trump’s lawyers got the prosecutor on another case fired for going on a date and we keep putting up with this woman???
Different rules depending on whos intereste you signal you’re going to serve.
While I agree with the sentiment… if you are referring to Nathan Wade, my understanding is that it was way more than “going on a date”.
More like fucking your boss (the DA, who assigned you this case) on the reg (behind your wife’s back), going on trips with your boss and being reimbursed by her for her expenses in cash, and perjuring yourself at your divorce hearing where you lied about when you started fucking your boss on the reg. There’s more that I’m sure I don’t remember. Lots of drama.
Admittedly not super relevant to the trump case but still enough of a shit show that looks bad and shouldn’t be happening. If he didn’t resign, I believe the entire office would have been kicked off the case since it’s under the DA/boss he’d been fucking. Now some other lawyer needs to take it over.
This is totally fair and I am grateful that you added a lot more context to my admittedly emotional and hyperbolic reactionary comment, while understanding the sentiment that this judge is doing unethical things that are directly affecting the case in favor to one side; in comparison to what amounts to a bad look (since there was no evidence that it was affecting the outcome of the case)