Judge Aileen Cannon’s recent decision to allow oral arguments in the Trump case reeks of deliberate sabotage. This move, which will inevitably delay the trial, is not only unprecedented but also highly suspicious.
CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams pulled no punches on Wednesday when criticizing Cannon’s decision to allow oral arguments that will likely delay Trump’s trial further.
“Not normal at all,” he said of Cannon’s tactics. “There is literally no reason why the judge needs to have additional folks come in at the oral argument.”
Typically, judges may permit outside attorneys to file amicus briefs for consideration, but these briefs are almost never presented as oral arguments in court. Cannon’s insistence on this unnecessary process is a blatant deviation from standard judicial procedures.
The arguments being made by Trump-friendly lawyers—that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed—are not groundbreaking. These claims have been repeatedly dismissed by courts, yet Cannon seems determined to entertain them, further stalling the judicial process.
Such actions from Cannon are not just questionable; they are alarming. Observers are rightfully asking whether her decisions are the result of inexperience or if there’s a more sinister motive at play. Is it possible that Trump holds some form of leverage over her? The pattern of her rulings certainly raises eyebrows and casts a shadow over her impartiality.
Wall Street Journal reporter Molly Ball pointed out that Cannon’s ruling raises serious questions about her motivations. “Observers are questioning whether Cannon’s decisions stem from inexperience or a bias toward the defendant,” she argued.
Regardless of the reason, Ball highlighted that Cannon’s actions have “consistently delayed the case.”
“The end result has been that this is not going to trial anytime soon,” she concluded.
Watch the discussion below from CNN:
