Judge hits ‘stand-up double’ with trial ruling

OK, it wasn’t a home run or even a triple, but the judge who is presiding over the classified documents pilfering by Donald J. Trump has issued a ruling that is giving me a glimmer of hope that we can get a trial without bias.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, nominated by Donald J. Trump to the federal bench in the final weeks of his term as POTUS, has set a May 20 trial date in Fort Pierce, Fla., on the indictment alleging that Trump broke the law by squirreling away classified documents in his Florida mansion.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team of federal prosecutor’s wanted to stage the trial in December; Trump’s team wanted an indefinite delay. Cannon split the difference — more or less — by setting the May date. Frankly, it appears to favor Smith’s side of the argument.

The New York trial in which Trump was indicted for the hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels will have concluded. Trump might get convicted of violating state law in spending campaign money keep Daniels quiet about a tryst she says occurred, but which Trump denies … go figure on that one!

The Republican Party presidential primary season will be all but over when Cannon commences the documents trial. Trump remains the favorite for the GOP nomination.

If it concludes prior to the start of the GOP convention, and Trump is convicted of federal felonies (which many observers believe is a probability), then delegates get to decide whether they want to nominate a convicted felon for POTUS.

The ex-POTUS’s legal difficulties are mounting seemingly by the hour, which makes me wonder — and I am serious about this — whether he’ll be able to continue to mount a political campaign while seeking to keep his sorry backside out of prison.

I get that Cannon should have recused herself from this trial, given her conflict of interest in being nominated by the criminal defendant in this case. She hasn’t. She likely won’t.

So, we are left then to hope she does right by the judicial system she serves. It looks to me as if setting the trial date is a step toward correctness.