In another controversial decision that highlights her bias towards former President Donald Trump, Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday rejected a motion by special counsel Jack Smith aimed at curbing Trump’s incendiary posts on Truth Social. The motion was filed in response to Trump’s false claims that law enforcement had the power to assassinate him, a statement that prosecutors argued endangered officers involved in the classified documents case.
Smith’s team had sought to limit Trump’s speech, arguing that his false accusations posed a significant and imminent threat to law enforcement officers. Trump had alarmed many by asserting that President Biden and the Justice Department were authorized to “take me out” during the search for documents at Mar-a-Lago. This twisted interpretation of official documents, which only allowed deadly force if agents faced “imminent danger of death or serious physical injury,” was seen as a deliberate effort to incite hostility against federal officers.
Judge Cannon’s rebuke of Smith’s team centered on procedural grounds, accusing them of failing to properly confer with Trump’s attorneys before filing the motion. The timing of their outreach—5:30 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend—was cited as inadequate. “The Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma ‘conferral’ to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy,” Cannon wrote, downplaying the urgency of the threats posed by Trump’s statements.
Trump’s legal team, quick to capitalize on the procedural misstep, accused prosecutors of non-compliance with earlier court orders. Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s attorneys, criticized the last-minute communication, calling it insufficient for meaningful consultation.
Don't Miss
Smith’s team maintained that Trump’s false claims posed a real danger to law enforcement officers expected to testify if the case goes to trial. Despite these serious concerns, Judge Cannon has yet to set a trial date, choosing instead to focus on pretrial motions.
Jay Bratt, a leading prosecutor in the case, underscored the immediacy of the threat, noting that Trump continued to disseminate false statements on Truth Social, exacerbating risks to federal officers. However, Cannon dismissed this argument, instructing both parties to ensure future motions include detailed records of their communications and limiting the editorial content allowed in these filings.
Judge Cannon’s decision not only permits Trump to continue his inflammatory rhetoric but also underscores a perceived bias in her handling of the case. Her ruling has drawn criticism for prioritizing procedural formalities over the safety concerns of law enforcement officers, raising questions about impartiality and the protection of justice.
This ruling is unlikely to be the final word on the matter, but it starkly reveals the judicial leniency extended to Trump, potentially at the expense of law enforcement safety and the integrity of the judicial process.
