Judge Cannon Shows Her Bias And Incompetence By Citing DOJ Rule That Doesn't Actually Exist

During a pre-trial hearing last week, Judge Aileen Cannon once again proved that she can't be trusted to preside over Donald Trump's documents trial when she cited a Department of Justice rule prohibiting prosecuting politicians within 60 days of an election. However, that's not actually a thing, and the memo outlining the circumstances was wildly misconstrued by Cannon. She's showing that she's either in the tank for Trump, or too incompetent to be a judge, or perhaps a combination of both. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

So last Friday there was a hearing with Judge Eileen Cannon and lawyers for Donald Trump, as well as the prosecutors, including Jack Smith. And during this hearing, according to a former top prosecutor for the Mueller team, Andrew Weissman, judge Eileen Cannon, who of course was appointed by Donald Trump, showed either her incompetence or she showed her bias in favor of Trump, or a combination of both. And Weissman pointed to a single thing that Canon asked Donald Trump, or excuse me, asked Jack Smith during this hearing. And it was about a thing that technically, the way Canon allegedly understands it doesn't actually even exist. Here is what Wiseman said. Why was Judge Canon today asking Jack Smith team about a DOJ 60 day policy? Given that it provides a defendant no enforceable rights and is also plainly in inapplicable, it shows her inexperience or her bias, or both. In my honest opinion, the 60 day rule is both not a law, just internal DOJ guidance, and in inapplicable, it's meant to not make new allegations shortly before an election when a person can't have a trial to confront them.

This is the opposite already. Public charges the US seeks to prove at a trial. So just to kind of break it down, Canon asked Jack Smith like, well, hey Jack Smith, there's a rule at the DOJ that says you can't prosecute somebody 60 days before an election. What do you think of that? And as Weissman's pointing out, that's not a rule, it's just general guidance for the DOJ. It's not what they like to do, but it also does not apply to people that have already been charged. It's only about bringing new allegations and new charges against a new person running for office 60 days before their election. So Canon automatically got it wrong about what the rule is. She also got it wrong in the fact that it's not even actually a rule, it's just guidelines for the DOJ that they can choose to ignore or choose to follow if they want. It's not enforceable, it is not a law. So why in the hell would Judge Cannon even bring it up? And it comes down to those two things that Weissman pointed out. Either she is grossly incompetent, which I think a hundred percent yes, because as I've always said, and it's important to remember this, she has overseen four criminal trials in her time on the bench for a grand total of 14 days.

14 days, not even three full weeks of business days. She has overseen any kind of criminal trial. So she doesn't know what the hell she's doing. So a hundred percent she's incompetent. I'd also say a hundred percent

That, that she's definitely in the tank for Donald Trump. She wouldn't be asking about this if she thought, oh, maybe I can get out of it. But I gotta tell you, at this point, Jack Smith has more than enough with his pile of evidence of, of her bias and incompetence to go to the appellate division and request that she be removed from the case. I mean, hell, at this point, if Democrats controlled Congress, they could impeach her. Like that's how bad this has been for gross incompetence of not understanding the law. But Jack Smith has a compelling case if he wants to take it to that circuit court and get her removed. And I think he's gonna do it. I think he just wants to make sure that his case is airtight and he has as much evidence as possible, which is why he's waited this long. But I do think in the very near future it's going to happen.