Anonymous sources claimed to The New York Times last week that two federal judges allegedly urged Judge Aileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida to pass the high-profile case concerning former President Donald Trump’s classified documents to a colleague.
The article, along with several other seemingly scathing attacks by the press on the Columbian-born American for “pro-Trump rulings,” conveniently made their rounds just a few weeks after a federal appeals court rejected Democrats’ “orchestrated” attempt to get Cannon to recuse herself from the case.
According to media like the Times, Cannon is unable to fairly oversee this particular case because Trump appointed her. Never mind that Democrat-appointed judges have escaped scrutiny for years despite routinely presiding over political cases.
The idea that Trump had the foresight to know when he appointed Cannon that he would spend days of precious campaign time in her court over a manufactured classified document scandal that his political opponent managed to escape is not just ridiculous. It’s part of a concerted effort by corporate media to discredit Cannon and her commitment to supervising the Trump case with constitutional caution.
Every decision Cannon has made in the classified document case has stayed within the confines of her authority. In fact, many of the judge’s decrees have been to curb the atrocious infringement of liberty and due process committed by President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
A Deliberate Double Standard
The Times accused Cannon of showing “unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment.” The alleged intervention Cannon committed was indefinitely postponing the Trump trial after the DOJ admitted to tampering with evidence during the FBI’s August 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago.
Demanding an independent review of the documents that Smith claimed Trump harbored illegally is no crime or conflict. Rather, giving the defendant due process, unsealing documents key to understanding the DOJ’s targeting of Trump, and allowing Trump’s lawyers to contest Smith’s appointment as unconstitutional were all routine decisions that, if made in any other case, would not raise eyebrows.
The Times, a fierce ally of the Biden regime, however, took issue with these basic actions because Cannon’s decisions have derailed the administration’s attempt to get Trump as many convictions and as much jail time as possible before voting for the 2024 presidential election begins.
When Judge Arthur Engoron smirked at Trump in his New York courtroom at the start of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ weak case against the Republican president, he was cheered by the corrupt press. When Cannon shut down a DOJ prosecutor who later admitted that he was acting unprofessionally, however, she was scrutinized.
Cannon, like every other U.S. judge, took an oath to “administer justice without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me … under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Her position as presiding jurist in one of the many cases against Trump has not violated that oath. On the contrary, Cannon has gone to great lengths to uphold the due process rights Trump and his defense team were not afforded by courts run by partisan judges.
Cannon isn’t conspiring with the Trump campaign to score him small courtroom victories, as the corrupt press would lead you to believe. She’s just doing her job to uphold the Constitution, something the judges responsible for overseeing other lawfare cases would benefit from trying.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Comments are closed.