The relationship between a federal judge and a former U.S. president is far too complicated for my feeble mind to comprehend.
I’ll try to sort it out anyway.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over the pending trial involving Donald Trump’s pilfering of classified documents from the White House. Trump nominated Cannon to her federal judicial seat. That’s one element.
Trump has filed a petition asking that Cannon delay the trial until after the November 2024 presidential election. His filing in the court actually declares that the judge should do his bidding, which by itself isn’t necessarily Earth-shattering. What gives the declaration its heft is that it comes from an ex-POTUS who has been indicted for the first time in history by the very same Justice Department he once took an oath to protect.
OK, what does Judge Cannon do? Does she go along with Trump’s demand for an indefinite postponement? Or does she set a trial date and hold firm?
Cannon is under no specific obligation to do as Trump demands. However, she is a human being who — just like the rest of us — doesn’t like the barrage of criticism she is sure to face if she grants Trump’s demand for a postponement.
Cannon set an Aug. 14 trial date after Trump was indicted. Special counsel Jack Smith asked for a delay until December; Cannon granted that request.
Trump is certain to play the delay game as a ploy to cast doubt on witnesses’ memory. The longer we wait, the foggier those memories become. Smith, on the other hand, is vowing a “speedy trial.”
I want a speedy trial. I do not want Trump to delay this proceeding into oblivion. I also want Judge Cannon to set a firm trial date and stand her ground.
This case has made history already in ways we haven’t yet been able to calculate.
