Inquiring Minds Want To Know! 🤨

 Loose Cannon is in the tank for Trump:

PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice 219 Motion for CIPA Section 5 Notification. As stated in the Court’s November 10, 2023, Order 215, “[a]ll previously remaining deadlines in the Court’s July 21, 2023, Order are superseded except calendar call and trial.” The Court “reset[] the first set of pre-trial deadlines” as indicated on pages 8 and 9 of that Order 215 and scheduled a conference on March 1, 2024, “to address remaining deadlines.” To the extent the Special Counsel’s motion seeks reconsideration in part of the Court’s November 10, 2023, Order 215, that request is denied. CIPA Section 5 deadlines, and all other pre-trial deadlines not included in the first batch of pre-trial deadlines contained in the Court’s revised schedule 215, will be set following the March 1, 2024, scheduling conference.

As you can see, that is a paperless order, and that is the entirety of it. I post it to note its brevity (excessively so) in and its rather petulant “fuck you we’re doing this my way” tone. Court orders on such matters usually explain their reasoning and provide a brief record giving the order context. Context both for the parties and for the appellate court.

As I recall, the 11th Circuit wasn’t too pleased with the record for review when they slapped Cannon silly the last time.

Given this is a CIPA matter, it’s an issue that deserves some explanation for the court’s actions.  Even Engoron said Trump’s motion for mistrial was “without merit” and so didn’t deserve a hearing.* This order just says: “Nope.”  Given this judge’s history, that’s not really enough.

Compare that to Chutkan’s “Opinion and Order” on Trump’s Motion to Strike. It’s a three page document, with an opening paragraph summarizing Trump’s motion and argument (the way I tried to teach my composition students to do it). The “opinion” then begins with a review of the applicable Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the relevant case law. Within three paragraphs she has stated the relevant issues, pointed out Trump’s 16 page motion never addresses ONE of those legal issues, and provides no evidence of any kind to support its argument.** She even says the remedy he seeks will be available in a limine hearing.

And then, having gutted his “argument” like a fish, she denies the relief it sought. And you understand what she did, and you understand why she did it.

Now even the Supremes issue orders that are little more than: “No,” usually to parties seeking a hearing or certiorari. When the issue is perfunctory, that is appropriate. But it seems to me, when the motion involves a CIPA hearing, rather than some plea for relief that is very poorly made, the moving parties are entitled to more of an explanation. Especially when it affects quite seriously the status and conduct of the case.

Judge Chutkan was capable of doing that. Judge Cannon was not. And it does raise a serious question about Cannon’s impartiality, and her ability to do the job. 

Federal judge, after all, is not a job with much of a grace period to it. You can either do it, or you can’t. If you can’t explain your decisions, or just don’t want to, it doesn’t look like you can do the job.

Because explaining your decisions is a big part of the job.

* As Stewart Bishop reported:

Technically, what the judge did here was to decline to sign a proposed order to show cause that would allow Trump to file a motion for a mistrial. In other words, Justice Engoron said Trump’s arguments were so awful, that to even allow Trump to try would be futile.

**Which is starting to sound familiar:

"There is no factual or legal basis for a mistrial based on these allegations against my principal law clerk," Justice Engoron said.

Engoron’s order, btw, is short and worth reading.