Calendar Catastrophe! CNN’s Epic Overreaction to Judge Cannon’s Moves


by Jeff Childers

CNN ran a story yesterday dramatically headlined, “Judge Aileen Cannon rips up court schedule in Mar-a-Lago case in ways that benefit Trump.”  Goodness! But it turned out Judge Cannon didn’t literally rip up the court schedule. Anyway, the headline editor should have said, shreds the court schedule. It’s more alliterative.

Because of an editorial error, I first found CNN’s much less dramatic original headline, which was, “Judge Cannon expands hearing on Trump’s request to declare special counsel’s appointment invalid.”

image 5.png

CLIP: Representative Massie (R-Ky) grills Grandma Garland over Special Counsel appointment (2:08).
Maybe CNN changed its headline because the old one pointed right to Representative Thomas Massie’s interrogation of Merrick Garland this week. It’s linked above. In the clip, Representative Massie demanded answers from the nation’s stuttering top cop.

The problem for Garland was that Congress allowed the ‘independent prosecutor’ statute to expire. Nor does the Constitution provide for any unconfirmed ‘special prosecutors.’

So what, after all, is Trump prosecutor Jack Smith, legally speaking? He was a private lawyer until Garland appointed him as a Special Counsel. A ‘special counsel’ is normally used when DOJ has a conflict of interest.

But it’s a time of very creative lawyering, and there is a broadly worded catchall phrase hanging at the end of a sentence in 28 CFR § 600.1. It purports to allow appointment of a special counsel in “other extraordinary circumstances:”

image 6.png

The DOJ argues prosecution of a former president is a pretty extraordinary circumstance, and it’s hard to argue against that. But on the other hand, every single case features at least something potentially extraordinary. Trump’s lawyers argue those three little words weren’t meant to expand special counsel jurisdiction into outer space somewhere just past Saturn.

And, ahem, there used to be an Independent Counsel statute (now expired) that was used with other troublesome Presidents, like Dick Nixon and Bill Clinton. If 28 CFR § 600.1 works so well, then why did Congress pass the Independent Counsel statute (now expired) in the first place?

Needless to say, it’s a nitpicky technical argument about a poorly-drafted clause, and all the legal experts disagree along partisan lines just as you’d expect. It’s important, though. It would be hard, if not impossible, for a new Attorney General in a new Trump Administration to replace a Special Counsel.

In other words, Democrats don’t want Trump, if elected, to be able to replace Jack Smith with a sane prosecutor.

So that’s what Florida Southern District Judge Aileen Cannon aims to find out. She’s agreed to let legal experts on both sides argue, which was smart, because it will prove the issue isn’t just a silly partisan distraction.

Either way, the loser will instantly appeal her ultimate decision, dragging out the case even further. What’s got Democrats most cranky is that Judge Cannon informally stayed the rest of the case until she can decide whether Jack Smith was legally appointed in the first place.

Which is why CNN indignantly called Judge Cannon’s totally understandable docket management “ripping up the calendar.” CNN reporters are starting to lose hope, anxiously fretting Trump’s lawyers may have just procedurally won the case, and they blame the judge:

image 7.png

The hand-wringing about Trump’s prosecution in this case is a good sign they aren’t optimistic Judge Merchan’s conviction will hold up either. Which also explains why CNN was equally upset about what happened yesterday in the Fani Willis ‘lend me a G’ fiasco.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is what we’ve come to and it’s only taken a very few years. The left no longer knows what actual justice looks like.

In the past, when the government was bringing a case, they would make sure they had all their “I’s” dotted and “T’s” crossed, Constitutionally speaking. They wanted to prove their case and they didn’t want to lose it on some technicality. However, this is difficult to do when you are just making shit up. You can’t make the target aware of all their rights when you are trying to blindside them with some novel, concocted, fabricated charge. So, they make some broad, ambiguous charge on paper, cover it in public with a plethora of made up charges and accusations to propel the case publicly, and try to keep all evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, away from the target.

In the lawfare cases the fascists have been bringing, they’ve kept them on home turf: deeply and prejudicially biased NYC, specifically Manhattan. There, they can ignore the rotational process and select the dependable, biased, prejudiced, ideological judge they will need to stomp any respect for due process quickly to death.

Then comes Florida and Judge Cannon. She doesn’t have an overriding interest in furthering the leftist agenda now matter how much collateral Constitutional damage there is. She is hearing a case in a US court following the US Constitution. THIS is what justice used to look like. Oh… you withheld evidence from the defense? Well, provide it. Oh, all the evidence you were forced to provide has been heavily redacted? Un-redact it. Oh, you tampered with and manipulated physical evidence? Uh-oh… hold on a minute. You did WHAT? And, who are you? How did you get this job? Show me where you are even authorized to pursue this case, Mr. Jerk Smear. Remember all the election fraud cases thrown out for “lack of standing”? Well, this is where that really applies, and the left HATES it.

Wait… what? We’re supposed to PROVE guilt instead of the target having to prove he didn’t do what we made up and said he did? What did THAT shit start? How are we supposed to WIN with those rules? Mr. Bad Orange Man is so bad, we HAVE to convict him. You can’t do that AND have RULES and shit!

Democrats forgot (or hope they destroyed) what the justice system really looks like and how it functions. Much to their chagrin and shock, there are still some places they cannot deploy their lawfare weapon.