In a scathing filing, the special counsel pushed back on Judge Aileen Cannon’s interpretations of laws that could define the case against Trump
Special Counsel Jack Smith went toe-to-toe with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon over her requests for jury instructions in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
In a scathing filing submitted Tuesday, Smith accused Cannon of operating on an “unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise” when she requested that the parties in the case draft different versions of their proposed jury instructions based on their competing interpretations of laws governing classified materials and presidential records.
Trump has argued that his retention of classified documents after his ouster from the White House was perfectly legal. Claiming that he both unilaterally telepathically declassified the documents, and that they were simply personal records he was already authorized to take. The former president’s trial on 40 charges related to his alleged mishandling of the documents is scheduled to begin in May, but will likely be delayed.
What are you basing this on?
Courts self manage their own judges. Usually an appeals court or a state supreme court will punish judges for misconduct. At the Federal level, I’m not sure if it starts at an appeals court or the SCOTUS, but they can definitely punish and remove federal judges as well. Impeachment is also an option, but that’s a hard one to do.
I hear you, and those things seem nice at a glance, but I don’t agree with your sense of guarantee. We’re seeing an upending of things that “usually” happen, or that “definitely can” happen, especially with “self-managed” entities such as the SCOTUS. Have you seen judges actually get held accountable recently, even locally?