It is probably one hundred percent certain Trump will escape justice in the National Security documents case in Florida district court. Prosecutors filed a motion on November 2 in response to defendent's request to slip the trial due to conflicts with the defendent's DC trial. The prosecution's response directly reminded the judge that the defendent was purposely REQUESTING a delay in trial B because of trial A while at the same time filing motions to delay trial A which would further conflict with trial B, likely triggering MORE delay.
"Judge" Aileen Cannon not only had no interest in learning of the unethical subterfuge on the part of the defense counsel, she chastised PROSECUTORS for filing a response longer than two hundred words (the response was 237 words long). That is apparently over some limit that exists in at least Cannon's "mind".
Except as authorized by Court order, the substantive content of any such notice (or response) may not exceed 200 words and may not be used as a surreply absent leave of Court... Future non-compliant noticed or unauthorized filings will be stricken without further notice.
I find it hard to believe ANY aspect of federal criminal court has a word limit on any form of written communication between parties and the court. It would seem a miscarriage of justice to attempt to impose and enforce any such limit. Attempting to enforce such a limit would likely be cited as preventing a defense lawyer from expressing the full extent of their client's defense and would violate professional ethics.
Cannon appears to be the federal judiciary's first "Up Goer Five" jurist. Someone so dumb they demand that all topics and work be presented to them in language limited to "the ten hundred" most commonly used words.
This entire post is 465 words (I counted). It took Cannon more time to consider and draft her snark to the prosecutor than it took to read the extra THIRTY SEVEN WORDS of their filing. That isn't the sign of a judge working for justice. That's a sign of a judge looking to do the LEAST amount of work possible while protecting her only patron in her entire career.
It is likely too late for prosecutors to pursue and win a recusal battle to oust Cannon from the trial. It isn't clear what authority the larger judiciary has to intervene and not only remove this judge from this case but remove her from the bench. At this point, there isn't even a shadow of a doubt that Cannon is not impartial and is completely unqualified to serve as a judge in any court, much less the federal judiciary. She seems absolutely determined to delay this trial as much as possible and find ways to compromise the tactics of the prosecution.
WTH
