Judge Aileen Cannon considering reversal of ruling allowing prosecutors to pierce attorney-client privilege of Trump's lawyer M. Evan Corcoran in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
Reconsideration could deal serious blow to obstruction charges or result in further trial delays.
Ruling served as basis for obstruction charges against Trump.
Former President Donald J. Trump is facing renewed legal challenges in the ongoing investigation into the mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In a recent development, Judge Aileen Cannon has announced her intention to hold a hearing to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Trump's lawyers in the case.
Last year, another judge ruled that legal work by one of Trump's lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, had most likely been used in the commission of a crime. This ruling served as a cornerstone for the obstruction charges filed against Trump.
However, Judge Cannon's decision to reconsider this ruling could have significant implications for the case. Depending on her ultimate decision, it could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges or result in further delays in bringing the case to trial.
The hearing comes after Trump's lawyers and prosecutors held a sealed hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida, to discuss whether to relitigate the battle over the crime-fraud exception. At this hearing, prosecutors warned that a new proceeding on the question would result in a 'mini-trial' and subject some of their witnesses to cross-examination before the actual trial began.
Despite these developments, Trump has continued to make public statements about the case, which could potentially interfere with ongoing investigations. Special Counsel Jack Smith has urged Judge Cannon to impose a gag order on Trump to prevent him from making such statements.
Judge Aileen Cannon intends to hold a hearing to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Donald Trump’s lawyers in the classified documents case.
,
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon intends to hold a hearing to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Donald Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case.
Judge Aileen Cannon rejected former President Donald Trump's claims that FBI officials misled the court to obtain permission to search his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained classified materials after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by referring to the proceedings as a 'mini-trial' and 'hijacking' of the proceedings. She also makes an appeal to authority by quoting Judge Cannon's statements without providing context or analysis.
“There is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial,’ on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress,”
“The parties can meaningfully confer beforehand on the scope and timing of the hearing, raising appropriate objections with the Court as necessary; the parties can (and will) file exhibit and witness lists as is customary in federal criminal suppression litigation; and the Special Counsel can request the Court to impose reasonable limitations on the evidence produced to ensure efficiency and control,”
“Highly respected Judge Aileen Cannon has rightfully scheduled hearings on the un-Constitutional piercing of President Trump’s attorney-client privilege and the illegal raid on Mar-a-Lago by Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ.”
Judge Aileen Cannon intends to hold a hearing to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Donald Trump’s lawyers in the classified documents case.
Another judge ruled last year that legal work by one of Trump’s lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, had most likely been used in the commission of a crime.
Accuracy
Depending on how Judge Cannon rules, her decision could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges in Trump’s indictment by delaying the case from going to trial for longer.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected former President Donald Trump’s claims that FBI officials misled the court to obtain permission to search his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Accuracy
Trump's team is also testing a Washington, DC, federal court’s decision during the grand jury investigation to force Corcoran to share his conversations with Trump
Judge Aileen Cannon intends to hold a hearing to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Donald Trump’s lawyers in the classified documents case
Special Counsel Jack Smith's team has submitted dozens of examples as to why Donald Trump should have a gag order imposed on him in the classified documents case.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained classified materials after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them.
Smith criticized Trump and his rhetoric while detailing specific threats he blamed on the former president in a June 21 filing.
Accuracy
Trump and his lawyers argued a gag order would be a violation of his First Amendment rights during his 2024 White House campaign.
Deception
(0%)
The author makes several statements that could be considered emotionally manipulative and sensational. The article implies that Trump's statements could endanger the lives of law enforcement officials, but it does not provide any evidence to support this claim beyond anecdotal examples of threats against judges and court staff following Trump's comments. The author also selectively reports details that support their argument for a gag order on Trump, while omitting information that contradicts it. For example, the article mentions that Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, but it does not mention that he has also filed a motion to dismiss the case. The author also uses loaded language in describing Trump's statements as 'knowingly false and inflammatory', but they do not provide any evidence to support this characterization. Additionally, the article references several studies or reports without providing any context or citation for them.
,
Trump’s recent posts falsely insinuating that the FBI and DOJ had planned to assassinate him during the search at Mar-a-Lago are even more egregious.
The gag order request from the government arrived after Trump falsely declared that President Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their illegal and Unconstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by stating that 'Special Counsel Jack Smith's team has submitted dozens of examples as to why Donald Trump should have a gag order imposed on him in the classified documents case.' This is not a fallacy in and of itself, but it can be seen as an attempt to lend credibility to the argument for a gag order based on the authority of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used by Trump that could be considered threats, such as his statement 'I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the “Icebox,” and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their illegal and Unconstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.' This statement could be seen as an incitement to violence and a threat against law enforcement officials. The author also quotes Trump's statements directly, but since the author is not making any assertions beyond reporting Trump's words, this does not constitute a fallacy on the part of the author.
]Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team has submitted dozens of examples as to why Donald Trump should have a gag order imposed on him in the classified documents case.[
Bias
(0%)
The author, Ewan Palmer, demonstrates a clear bias against Donald Trump in this article. He provides numerous examples of Trump's statements that could be perceived as threats and incitement to violence towards law enforcement officials and the FBI. The author also uses language that depicts Trump as a serious threat to democracy and mentally unfit to hold office. This bias is evident throughout the article, with no attempt made to hide or downplay it.
Deploying such knowingly false and inflammatory language in the combustible atmosphere that Trump has created poses an imminent danger to law enforcement that must be addressed before more violence occurs.
, NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE
Trump falsely declared that President Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their illegal and Unconstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.
Trump’s recent posts falsely insinuating that the FBI and DOJ had planned to assassinate him during the search at Mar-a-Lago are even more egregious.
Judge Aileen Cannon dedicated three days to exploring long-shot motions from former President Trump's team in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Two of Cannon's judicial colleagues urged her to hand off the case due to concerns about optics and potential bias.
Critics argue that Cannon is slow-walking the case to benefit Trump's desire for delay.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon wants to hold additional hearings on Donald Trump's attempts to challenge key evidence in his classified documents case.
Judge Aileen Cannon intends to reconsider a ruling that allowed prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Donald Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained classified materials after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them.
Deception
(45%)
The article provides a detailed account of Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, highlighting her lengthy consideration of motions and her invitation to outside groups to weigh in on the matter. The article also reports on criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum regarding Cannon's decisions, with some suggesting that inexperience, incompetence or even bias could be affecting her handling of the case. However, no sources are disclosed or quoted, so the score cannot go below 45.
Judge Aileen Cannon’s plodding supervision of the Mar-a-Lago documents case is coming under building scrutiny after she dedicated three days to exploring long-shot motions from former President Trump.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The author, Rebecca Beitsch, uses language that depicts the judge's handling of the case as problematic and unusual. She quotes several attorneys who criticize the judge for her slow pace in making decisions and delaying a trial date. The author also implies that these delays are beneficial to Trump.
By not setting a trial date, by not deciding motions, she is simply slow-walking the case, and that is clearly in Trump’s interest.
Her lengthy consideration comes after reporting from The New York Times that two of Cannon’s judicial colleagues urged her to hand off the case. Some have asked whether inexperience, incompetence or even bias could be affecting her handling of the case.
The decisions aren’t coming quick enough. She’s asking too many other people to come in and give their opinions. It's really playing right into the defense's hands.
