Cannon chose to keep the case despite concerns about her handling of it and limited trial experience.
Her decision has raised eyebrows due to past favorable treatment of Trump and slow handling of pretrial motions.
The trial, which is not yet scheduled for a date, has seen numerous delays.
Two federal judges urged Judge Aileen Cannon to recuse herself from the Trump classified documents case in 2023.
Two federal judges, Cecilia M. Altonaga and an unnamed colleague, privately urged Judge Aileen Cannon to decline the Trump classified documents case when it was assigned to her in 2023. Despite their concerns about her handling of the case and limited trial experience, Cannon chose to keep it.
Cannon's decision has raised eyebrows due to her past favorable treatment of Trump and slow handling of pretrial motions. The trial, which is not yet scheduled for a date, has seen numerous delays.
The judges' concerns were based on Cannon's approach in the Trump lawsuit challenging the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022. Critics argue that she has slowed the pace of the case to a near standstill, making a pre-election trial essentially out of reach.
For more information on this developing story, please refer to The New York Times, Axios, and The Washington Post articles provided in the source data.
Judge Aileen M. Cannon was assigned to handle former President Donald J. Trump’s case, which raised eyebrows due to her limited trial experience and past favorable treatment of Trump.
Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, but she chose to keep it.
Cannon has handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin despite both the prosecution and defense stating they could be ready this summer.
Cecilia M. Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, was one of the judges who approached Cannon and suggested she pass on the case.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(90%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it mentions that 'two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged Judge Cannon to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist.' This is an appeal to authority because the judges' opinions are being presented as evidence that Judge Cannon should not have taken the case, without any further justification or explanation given. Additionally, there is a use of inflammatory rhetoric when the article states that 'Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump.' This statement is inflammatory as it implies that Judge Cannon's previous actions were improper or biased, but no evidence is provided to support this claim.
]Two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged Judge Cannon to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist.[
Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump.
Bias
(95%)
The authors, Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer, demonstrate a clear bias towards implying that Judge Aileen M. Cannon's handling of the case is unusual or unfavorable due to her past actions and lack of experience. They also suggest that her colleagues had urged her to step aside because they believed she was not capable of handling the case fairly.
But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties.
The extraordinary and previously undisclosed effort by Judge Cannon’s colleagues to persuade her to step aside adds another dimension to the increasing criticism of how she has gone on to handle the case.
Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Aileen M. Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, according to two people briefed on the matter.
Judge Aileen Cannon has delayed the trial of Donald Trump for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago ocean estate.
Trump’s lawyers argue that Smith lacks the authority to prosecute due to his ‘Office of the special counsel’ not being first approved by Congress.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon was assigned to handle former President Donald Trump’s case.
Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year.
Cannon has handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin despite both the prosecution and defense stating they could be ready this summer.
Deception
(30%)
The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by portraying Judge Aileen Cannon as a 'disgrace to the concept of impartiality and integrity on the federal bench' and accusing her of delaying the case 'so badly that it now looks as if Trump might escape trial altogether'. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on Judge Cannon's rulings while ignoring other aspects of the case, such as the evidence against Trump.
Judge Cannon is a disgrace to the concept of impartiality and integrity on the federal bench. This case should already have been tried to a verdict.
The politician, still licking his wounds from his New York conviction, would be desperately fighting to stave off a humiliating distinction: becoming the first former president to be branded a two-time felon.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(15%)
The author expresses a clear bias against Judge Aileen Cannon and the Department of Justice in this article. The author uses language that depicts the judge as a 'disgrace to the concept of impartiality and integrity on the federal bench' and accuses her of delaying the case 'so badly that it now looks as if Trump might escape trial altogether'. The author also implies that Attorney General Merrick Garland lacks authority to appoint Special Counsel Jack Smith, stating that 'Trump's lawyers want the indictment to be dismissed in its entirety, a bid premised on the notion that Smith is powerless and his appointment 'invalid.'
Judge Cannon is a disgrace to the concept of impartiality and integrity on the federal bench.
The case has been unnecessarily delayed and it should be much farther than it is. Indeed, it probably should have gone to trial.
Trump's lawyers want the indictment to be dismissed in its entirety, a bid premised on the notion that Smith is powerless and his appointment 'invalid.'
Judge Aileen Cannon rejected suggestions from two superior judges to pass the Trump's classified documents case to a more experienced judge.
Two federal judges privately urged Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, but she chose to keep it.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon chose to keep the Trump case despite suggestions from two superior judges to pass it on to a more experienced jurist.
The New York Times reports that Judge Cannon had presided over four criminal trials before taking on Trump's case.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states 'Friction point: Altonaga then called Cannon and said the optics of her overseeing the trial would be bad.' The statement implies that the optics being a concern is a valid reason for Cannon to step down, but this is not explicitly stated or proven in the article. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article, such as 'intense scrutiny', 'coming under fire', and 'criticized by legal experts'. However, these do not directly impact the author's assertions and therefore do not significantly affect the score.
Friction point: Altonaga then called Cannon and said the optics of her overseeing the trial would be bad.
Two federal judges, including Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, urged Judge Aileen Cannon to step down from overseeing the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in 2023.
Judges suggested allowing another judge to govern the case instead due to concerns about Cannon’s handling of the case.
Cannon is still overseeing the case, which has seen numerous delays and is not yet scheduled for trial.
Accuracy
Two federal judges urged Judge Aileen Cannon to step down from overseeing the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in 2023.
Judge Aileen Cannon is still overseeing the case, which has seen numerous delays and is not yet scheduled for trial.
Critics say Cannon has slowed the pace of the case, making a pre-election trial unlikely.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon has shown inclination to act in favor of former President Donald Trump throughout the investigation into his mishandling of classified documents.
Cannon is poised to rule on Trump’s far-fetched bid to have the indictment dismissed on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment is constitutionally invalid.
The essence of Trump’s claim is that Smith’s naming as special counsel violates the Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires Officers of the United States to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Special counsels have been appointed for decades, including Archibald Cox in Watergate and Robert S. Mueller III in the Trump investigation.
Courts have previously dismissed constitutional challenges to special counsels, citing the attorney general’s authority to appoint them under relevant laws.
A 1987 law creates continuing appropriations to ‘pay all necessary expenses of investigations and prosecutions by independent counsel appointed pursuant to the provisions of [the now-lapsed independent-counsel statute] or other law.’
Accuracy
Judge Aileen M. Cannon has shown inclination to act in favor of former President Donald Trump throughout the investigation into his mishandling of classified documents.
Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, but she chose to keep it.
Cannon has handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin despite both the prosecution and defense stating they could be ready this summer.
Deception
(30%)
The article by Ruth Marcus contains several examples of deceptive practices. First, she uses emotional manipulation by describing Judge Aileen Cannon as 'poised to issue her most audacious ruling yet' and 'one loose Cannon'. Second, there is selective reporting as the author only reports details that support her position against Trump and his lawyers. For instance, she mentions Trump's delay in filing the motion to dismiss Smith's appointment but fails to mention that this delay was due to Trump's legal team initially believing they had a stronger case. Third, Marcus uses sensationalism by describing Cannon as 'acting in favor of the president who appointed her', 'audacious ruling', and 'one loose Cannon'. Lastly, she employs editorializing when she states that Trump's lawyers are bidding to 'root around in internal government discussions' and that they are trying to 'weaponize the criminal justice system'.
This judge is, sorry to say, one loose Cannon.
The essence of Trump’s claim – backed by, among others, former attorneys general Edwin Meese III and Michael Mukasey – is that Smith’s naming as special counsel violates the Constitution’s appointments clause.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against Judge Aileen Cannon by using derogatory language such as 'loose Cannon' and implying that she is acting in favor of Donald Trump without providing any evidence to support this claim. The author also uses loaded language when describing Trump's legal arguments as 'far-fetched' and 'Hail Mary motion'.
But at this point, after months of vacillating between slow-walking the case and issuing rulings favorable to Trump, Cannon can’t be underestimated.
The judge is, sorry to say, one loose Cannon.
This is the kind of Hail Mary motion that should have been dispatched quickly after Trump’s lawyers filed it in February.
