Connect with us

News

‘Bizarre’ Order Warrants Judge Cannon’s Removal: Experts

Published

on

Legal experts are urging Special Counsel Jack Smith to file for the removal of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, calling her recent order in the Trump Espionage Act/classified documents case “bizarre,” “legal inanity,” and saying it is an inaccurate interpretation of the law.

Judge Cannon “issued an unusual order late Monday regarding jury instructions at the end of the trial — even though she has not yet ruled on when the trial will be held, or a host of other issues,” The Washington Post reports. The paper adds that she “instructed lawyers to file proposed jury instructions by April 2 on two topics that are related to defense motions to have the indictment dismissed outright.”

Calling her order an “ultimatum,” The Daily Beast‘s Jose Pagliery explains, “as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.”

“Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.”

READ MORE: ‘Antisemitic’: Trump Blasted for Attack on Jewish Democrats

“Alternatively, Smith could appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where more experienced judges have already overturned Cannon and reined her in. But doing that will only further delay a trial that’s at least three months behind schedule, entirely by the judge’s own design,” The Daily Beast adds.

Diving a bit further into Cannon’s order, Pagliery adds: “Cannon’s evening order alerted federal prosecutors and Trump’s legal team that they ‘must engage with the following competing scenarios’ when considering whether Trump can be charged with ‘unauthorized possession’: Either ‘a jury is permitted to examine’ every record a former president swipes and claims as ‘personal’ to determine whether it is, or jurors must be told that ‘a president has sole authority… to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency.'”

Some in the legal community are vociferously denouncing Judge Cannon’s order.

Professor of law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, usually reserved in her commentary, called Cannon’s order “two pages of crazy stemming from the Judge’s apparent inability to tell Trump no when it comes to his argument that he turned the nation’s secrets into his personal records by designating them as such under the Presidential Records Act.”

She writes that each of Cannon’s “two ‘legal scenarios’ … seems to assume that the Presidential Records Act gives Trump the ability to morph national secrets into personal papers.”

READ MORE: ‘Next Up – Property Seizures’: Experts Analyze ‘Unbankable’ Trump’s $464 Million Bond Crisis

“Her two scenarios involve two different ways the Presidential Records Act could help Trump out, but they’re both wrong,” Vance says, noting that “Judge Cannon misses the fact that these items were government property, not Trump’s personal possessions.”

Attorney George Conway, who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and received a unanimous ruling, called Cannon’s order, “the most bizarre order I’ve ever seen issued by a federal judge. What makes that all the more amazing is that the second and third most bizarre orders I’ve ever seen in federal court were also issued by Judge Cannon in this case.”

He later called for Cannon’s removal:

“Okay, I’ve seen enough. Not only should Aileen Cannon not be sitting on this case, but she should not be sitting on the federal bench at all. This is utterly nuts.”

Professor of law and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann says Cannon’s order should be the last straw:

“This is the kind of legal inanity that could lead Jack Smith to seek to mandamus Judge Cannon- ie to get the 11th Circuit appeals court to hear this and reverse her for the third time- which could also be the proverbial three strikes and you’re out.”

Harvard University Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, a top constitutional law scholar, agreed, responding to Weissmann: “This is outrageous. It’s what the writ of mandamus is there for.”

Minutes later, Tribe also wrote: “OMG! Judge Cannon clearly cannot be permitted to preside over this case. Whether she should be removed from the federal judiciary altogether is another matter. She probably should. Her ruling makes utter nonsense of the Presidential Records Act.”

READ MORE: ‘Bloodbath’: Psaki Slams Trump Over ‘Embrace of Political Violence’

CNN legal analyst and former U.S. Ambassador Norm Eisen, who served as the House Judiciary Committee’s co-counsel during the first trump impeachment, served up an analysis of Cannon’s order.

“Cannon seems inclined to push the case to trial but is basically asking if she can stack the deck so Trump wins,” he writes.

And he says the Special Counsel can use this to have her removed:

“If she persists in this course, special counsel Jack Smith can & will go to the 11th Circuit And while he is there, this & several other recent (threatened) blunders give him ammo to have her reversed & removed.”

Former federal prosecutor Alan Lieberman declares: “Smith must petition the 11th Circuit to remove her.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Sounds Like Putin’: Trump Blasted for Declaring Top News Organizations ‘Illegal’

Published

on

President Donald Trump, just 54 days into his second term, declared himself “the chief law enforcement officer in our country” and labeled two major news organizations, CNN and MSNBC, as “illegal,” while further denouncing their coverage as “illegal.” His remarks Thursday afternoon were delivered to officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, in an appearance that shattered a decades-old norm designed to insulate the department from political interference—a safeguard established in response to President Richard Nixon’s abuses of power. Trump’s statements have drawn sharp criticism for their authoritarian tone and direct attack on press freedom, sparking alarm.

“I believe that CNN and MSNDC,” said Trump (video below), using his own derogatory twist on MSNBC’s name, “who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal. What they do is illegal.”

Trump also “rallied against the press,” in general, “claiming they are influencing judges and, without any evidence, claiming the media works in coordination with political campaigns, which is not allowed in the news industry,” The Hill reported.

READ MORE: White House Caught Admitting Real Reason for Mass Firings: Experts

It has been widely reported that during his first term in office, Fox News host Sean Hannity spoke with Trump “nearly every weeknight.”

“These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really, eh, changing law and it just cannot be legal. I don’t believe it’s legal and they do it in total coordination with each other,” the President alleged.

Trump’s remarks were just a part of a speech that lasted more than one hour, during which he “delivered an insult-laden speech that shattered the traditional notion of DOJ independence,” as Politico reported. During those remarks, Trump also “labeled his courtroom opponents ‘scum,’ judges ‘corrupt’ and the prosecutors who investigated him ‘deranged.'”

“With the DOJ logo directly behind him, Trump called for his legal tormentors to be sent to prison.”

It is not the first time the President, who is a convicted felon, has declared MSNBC “illegal.”

Last month, when MSNBC host Joy Reid left the news network, Trump unleashed a torrent of hatred.

“Lowlife Chairman of ‘Concast,’ Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform. “Based on her ratings, which were virtually non-existent, she should have been ‘canned’ long ago, along with everyone else who works there. Also thrown out was Alex Wagner, the sub on the seriously failing Rachel Maddow show. Rachel rarely shows up because she knows there’s nobody watching, and she also knows that she’s got less television persona than virtually anyone on television except, perhaps, Joy Reid.”

READ MORE: ‘Team Fight’: Democrats Call for Schumer to Resign

Trump’s Friday afternoon assault on the media was swiftly criticized.

“This is what a dictator sounds like,” wrote U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI).

“Journalism is legal,” declared award-winning investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein. “Criticizing the president is legal. Being a Democrat is legal. Nothing Donald Trump is ranting about here is a crime and he’s disgracing himself and the Department of Justice by talking this way.”

Journalist Matt O’Brien observed, “Trump wants to get rid of freedom of speech because he wants to be a dictator. And unlike his first term, he now has a government full of fascists who are eager to make that a reality.”

Marlow Stern, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Journalism at Columbia University’s Columbia Journalism School wrote: “sounds like putin.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist Kyle Whitmire wrote simply: “Enemy of the Constitution.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

White House Caught Admitting Real Reason for Mass Firings: Experts

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is “basically admitting” the White House “lied” about the mass firings of tens of thousands of federal government employees, a legal expert is alleging, based on her remarks on Friday. Many of not most of the terminated government workers were ordered to be reinstated by two separate federal courts on Thursday. Judges ruled the terminations were likely unlawful.

According to The New York Times, one judge “said in his lengthy ruling that the government’s contention that the firings of the probationary employees had been for cause, and not a mass layoff, ‘borders on the frivolous.'” Another judge “concluded much the same and made it clear that he thought the manner in which the Trump administration had fired the probationary workers was a ‘sham.'”

Leavitt previously has been criticized for having exhibited “a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution since 1789,” and for making false claims in general.

READ MORE: ‘Team Fight’: Democrats Call for Schumer to Resign

On Friday, having been asked to clarify a previous statement, Leavitt told reporters that the Trump administration will be “fighting back” against those two rulings “by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight of the White House Counsel’s office and our lawyers at the federal government who believed that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional.”

Leavitt insisted that the injunction — presumably both injunctions blocking the administration from additional mass firings and requiring that the fired probational employees be reinstated — are unconstitutional.

She claimed that, “for anybody who has a basic understanding of the law, you cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of the United States.”

That is false, and violates the separation of powers, as legal experts and Supreme Court cases have made clear, although it is a claim the Trump administration has repeatedly asserted.

“That is completely absurd, and as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or hire. And you have these lower level judges who are trying to, uh, block this president’s agenda,” she stated (video below).

That appears to be the remark that drew the attention of attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration policy expert and senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

“Pay attention here to how the White House is basically admitting to have lied about why these people were fired,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote. “Now they claim this was the President’s command and must not be overruled. But when the firings were happening, they claimed on paper it was for ‘performance’ reasons.”

Andrew Heineman, legislative director for U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wrote: “It sounds very much like Leavitt just admitted that the firings were part of Trump’s ‘agenda.'”

Leavitt went on to suggest that there is a conspiracy of activist judges working to “block” President Trump.

“It’s very clear, and as I just cited, I was appalled by the statistic when I saw it this morning in three or, uh, in one month in February, there have been 15 injunctions of this administration in our agenda,” she said.

“In three years under the Biden administration, there were 14 injunctions. So, uh, it’s very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president’s executive authority.”

She went on to praise President Trump and his legal team, saying that despite being “indicted nearly 200 times,” he was able to become President.

Trump has not been indicted nearly 200 times. He was indicted four times, and faced a total of 91 felony charges.

“We are going to fight back,” she insisted, “and as anyone who saw President Trump up in his legal team fighting back, they know how to do it. He was indicted nearly 200 times, and he’s in the Oval Office now because all of the indictments, all of these injunctions have always been unconstitutional and unfair.”

“They are led by partisan activists, who are trying to usurp the will of this president and we’re not going to stand for it.”

Critics blasted Leavitt’s grasp of the law.

Semafor’s David Weigel posted headlines of federal judges, or, “low level district court” judges, as she said, blocking other President’s actions.

“You sure about that? You sure about that?” he asked, mockingly.

Attorney and Democratic activist Aaron Parnas, responding to Leavitt’s claim that you cannot have a  judge block a president’s wishes, responded: “You actually can. That’s why we have three branches of government.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Entire World Ripping Us Off’: Trump Quotes FDR in Angry Tariff War Meltdown

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

Published

on

Barely more than 50 days into his second term, President Donald Trump appears to be failing in the eyes of a majority of American voters on nearly every major issue — from the economy to immigration to the war in Ukraine to trade to his handling of the federal workforce and more —according to a new poll released Thursday by the highly-respected Quinnipiac University.

“A noticeable uptick of discontent can be seen over President Trump’s handling of a range of issues: from Ukraine to the economy to the federal workforce,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement.

A majority of Americans, 53%, disapprove of the president’s performance overall, with just 42% approving. That’s a significant swing (11 points) on the disapproval side from Quinnipiac’s January 29 poll, which found 46% percent of Americans approved of the new president’s performance, and 42% disapproved.

Fox News host Jessica Tarlov gave an overview of the poll’s results, telling viewers (video below), “So basically, he is underwater on everything.”

READ MORE: ‘Bizarre’: GOP Obsessed With Me Instead of Governing, Says Transgender Congresswoman

On one of the most strongly-negative questions, 60% of voters oppose President Trump’s plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. Just one in three support it. Another major negative is Trump’s position on trade with Canada: 58 percent of voters disapprove of his handling of that issue, just 36 percent approve. That is closely followed by trade with Mexico (56% disapprove).

Historically, the economy has been one of Trump’s strongest approval areas. That is no longer the case.

A majority of voters, 54%, disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy — just 41% approve.

“In the Quinnipiac poll released today, 1 percent of voters describe the state of the America’s economy as excellent. That’s not a typo,” observed Democratic strategist Matt McDermott.

On that topic, Quinnipiac reported, a whopping “76 percent describe it as either not so good (45 percent) or poor (31 percent).”

According to Quinnipiac’s numbers, voters thought President J0e Biden’s economy was better in his last full month (December) than they think President Trump’s is now.

Quinnipiac University’s December 2024 poll found 34 percent described the economy “as either excellent (3 percent) or good (31 percent) and 64 percent described it as either not so good (31 percent) or poor (33 percent).”

Immigration, also once a strong area for Trump, no longer is.

Nearly half of voters, 49%, disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration issues. 46% approve.

Other negatives include his handling of the Russia – Ukraine war (55% disapprove), the federal workforce (also 55% disapprove), foreign policy (53% disapprove,) and the military (48% disapprove).

Trump’s Oval Office dressing down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not go over well with the American voter.

“Fifty-eight percent of voters disapprove of the way President Trump handled the recent meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, while 35 percent approve.”

Trump’s overall approval rating (42%) is actually one point below what voters gave President Zelenskyy (43%).

READ MORE: ‘Entire World Ripping Us Off’: Trump Quotes FDR in Angry Tariff War Meltdown

Meanwhile, six in ten voters (61%) think Trump is not hard enough on Russia, while half (50%) think he is too tough on Ukraine.

In fact, the only issue where Trump’s overall favorable outweighed his unfavorable rating is trade with China, which has not made many headlines recently. On that issue, 46% approve, 44% approve, a narrow margin.

But even in areas not directly tied to Trump’s approval rating, voters oppose the President’s position, at least in part.

“More than half of voters (57 percent) think that children who have not received standard vaccinations should not be allowed to attend schools and childcare facilities, while 35 percent think that children who have not received standard vaccinations should be allowed to attend schools and childcare facilities,” Quinnipiac found.

On the President’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), 60% of voters “disapprove of the way Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency,” Quinnipiac found, “are dealing with workers employed by the federal government, while 36 percent approve.”

Republicans (77 – 16 percent) approve, while Democrats (96 – 2 percent) and independents (68 – 28 percent) disapprove.

Fifty-four percent of voters think Elon Musk and DOGE are hurting the country, while 40 percent think they are helping the country.

President Trump has ordered that any school that requires vaccinations for COVID-19 will be defunded.

“TIMBER!” exclaimed SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah, who wrote that the poll shows, “Trump’s approval rating falling as fast as he’s killing stock market.”

“ONLY 42% approve of Trump’s presidency. That is LOWEST EVER for 2nd term President at 50 days,” he noted.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Not Above the Law’: Fist-Pounding Democrat Explodes Asking ‘Where’s Elon Musk?’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.