Judge Cannon represents the rot and corruption of the judicial system

She shouldn't have been on the Trump espionage case from the start. She definitely should've recused after Trump announced a presidential run. And there should have been a lot more outrage.

I’m not an attorney or legal scholar, but anyone with a basic sense of justice and fairness can see that there’s something very rotten in Florida regarding Trump’s espionage case and the presiding judge, Aileen Cannon—and something rotten with our entire system of justice.

Cannon, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida—appointed by Trump himself in 2020—ruled this week that there were too many pretrial issues unresolved for the trial to begin this month as scheduled, and she just put off a date indefinitely. That means no Trump trial before the election, and if Trump wins, he will surely kill the case.

A slew of Senate Democrats were suddenly outraged this week, but it was all too late.

The Signorile Report is reader-supported. If you’ve valued reading The Signorile Report, consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting independent, ad-free opinion journalism. Thanks!

“Justice deferred is often justice denied,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said. “It is profoundly frustrating that the judge is managing this case in a way that makes it highly unlikely that it will be resolved in a timely fashion.”

Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was more blunt about Cannon’s motives, noting that Cannon is the one largely responsible for leaving the pre-trial issues unresolved:

“Why are they not resolved? Some of it’s because she hasn’t issued decisions on things that have already been briefed for a while,” said Hirono, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t think that she’s being objective. I think she has an ideological agenda. I also think that she’s not very experienced in dealing with trials,” she added. “If there’s a way that she can be reassigned, I certainly would support that.”

All of that is well and good—though legal experts say it’s highly unlikely Cannon would be reassigned now—but where was this public outcry from politicians at the very beginning, when it might have made a difference?

Though Cannon was selected randomly among the judges of the district court, there should be rules in place regarding having a judge oversee a case in which the defendant is someone who gave her the job. I know a lot of people would quibble with this because, in addition to presidents like Trump, governors and other elected officials who’ve committed crimes face trials often enough, and with judges they may have helped put on the bench. And the system has apparently worked.

We’re supposed to believe that judges are fair and don’t do favors for those who helped them, and that a legislative confirmation process (either on the federal or state level) guards against this, as judges who show inexperience, corrupt tendencies, political bias, or other not-so-great qualities wouldn’t be confirmed.

But we are in a very polarizing time, and that hasn’t happened, surely not when it came to Trump and the judges he appointed to the federal bench right up to the Supreme Court. (And this rationale doesn't apply at all to judges who are popularly elected to the bench, as is the case in many states and localities, often by partisans who overwhelmingly support a politician or political party that might come before the court.)

Is it really asking a lot to have a rule that bans judges from overseeing such cases? I’m not talking about judges presiding over cases regarding the policies of politicians—just specifically on alleged crimes politicians have committed.

Alright, but even if we accept that it’s fine for a judge to preside over the case of a defendant who is a former president who put him or her on the bench, surely once that defendant announced another presidential run, the judge should be forced by law to recuse himself or herself, right?

Cannon, after all, is not only indebted to Trump for her job; she could be put on a U.S. appeals court or the Supreme Court by Trump if he wins the presidency again, as a reward for a job well done, and we know the Republicans would rubber-stamp it if they control the Senate. Cannon has a vested interest in putting off his trial, helping Trump win the election and kill the case.

It’s astounding to me that this could be the situation in America today.

But okay, again, even if people don’t believe such rules or laws should be in place regarding judges, surely there should at least be more outrage about it, right? That’s, after all, simply free speech.

Where were the calls by Democrats—and frankly, Republicans, who claim they’re the party of law and order—for Cannon to recuse herself when she was first randomly chosen? And where were the newspaper editorials, TV segments, punditry demands, and public protests?

After Cannon slow-walked the case in the very beginning (before charges were brought) and was slammed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 2022, which vacated her order to appoint a special master who would take up precious time, there should have been further public outrage. And that outrage should have come from Democrats and all of the corporate media. But it was all pretty muted, as people relied on the idea that justice would now prevail.

Think about how long this case has been going on. Mar-a-Lago was searched in August of 2022. Trump wasn’t charged—with 37 felony counts—until June of 2023, however, because Cannon ceded to Trump’s demand for a special master to laboriously go through the classified documents until the 11th Circuit finally reigned in Cannon.

Still, she continued to do what she could to slow down the case. Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto criminal, was charged in August 2022 in a more complicated case. By November 2023, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to prison in March 2024.

It’s fine to see Senate Democrats speaking out loudly now, even though it’s not going to do a thing. But I’m still not even seeing the newspaper editorials or the outrage in corporate media. It’s just more business as usual, with Trump reported by the media as doing something that’s normal among defendants in trying to run out the clock and win more time.

But no other defendant, now or in history, gave the job to the judge presiding over his case and now holds out the possibility of elevating that judge further if she does the right thing for him. That is truly extraordinary.

And if the shoe were on the other foot and this were a Democratic former president, does anyone truly think the indignation and anger in the political class and the media wouldn’t force the judge to recuse? Even Democrats would be joining in—you know it—and we all know what the GOP would be doing. The public pressure would be too much to bear, and the judge would be gone.

So yeah, Cannon is an example of the rot and corruption in the justice system. But this travesty reveals the normalization of it throughout the political world and the corporate media as well.