Trump-Appointed Judge Challenges Cannon Ruling in Classified Docs Case

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here. So, friends, you will undoubtedly recall that Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon, federal court judge down in Florida, threw out, dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents obstruction of justice espionage case based on her belief that, you know, this whole special counsel procedure, it's just not a thing. It's not lawful.

[00:00:28]It's not constitutional.

[00:00:30]Never mind we've been using some version of special counsel, independent counsel, special prosecutor dating back to the 1800s.

[00:00:39]She didn't like it, and she dismissed Trump's case.

[00:00:43]Okay.

[00:00:44]Now, let's follow the bouncing ball of justice or injustice.

[00:00:49]Hunter Biden is being prosecuted in two cases. The first one went to trial in Delaware, a federal prosecution, um and he was convicted of a couple of firearms offenses for lying on firearms purchase forms, and he's pending sentencing in that case. He's also pending trial in a second federal case, a criminal tax case out in California.

[00:01:13]He is indicted for allegedly, you know, dodging paying some of his federal taxes.

[00:01:20]And in that case in California, Hunter Biden's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case, just throw it out.

[00:01:27]Why? Because they said, well, Judge Aileen Cannon, federal judge down in Florida, ruled that special counsel ain't a thing, not lawful, not constitutional. So, we're going to file an us too motion, and we want you, federal court judge in California, to dismiss Hunter Biden's criminal tax case.

[00:01:47]Well, here is what the federal judge in California just ruled on Hunter Biden's motion to dismiss based on special counsel not being a thing.

[00:02:00]This from the Associated Press.

[00:02:02]Headline, "Judge knocks down Hunter Biden's bid to use Trump ruling to get his federal tax case dismissed."

[00:02:10]And that article begins, "A federal judge on Monday denied Hunter Biden's latest bid to dismiss the tax charges against him, setting the stage for his trial to begin next month in California."

[00:02:22]"Siting a ruling in Florida that threw out a separate prosecution of former President Donald Trump, Hunter Biden's lawyers had urged the judge to dismiss the case accusing him of a 4-year scheme to avoid paying at least $1.4 million in taxes."

[00:02:38]"US District Judge Aileen Cannon tossed Trump's classified documents case last month because she said Special Counsel Jack Smith, who filed those charges, was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. The Justice Department is appealing that ruling.

[00:02:55]Hunter Biden's lawyers had argued the same logic should apply in his case, which was brought by a different Justice Department special counsel.

[00:03:05]But, US District Judge Mark Scarsi, that is the federal court judge presiding over Hunter Biden's tax case in California, and let me not bury this interesting tidbit, Judge Scarsi was appointed by Donald Trump."

[00:03:22]My editorial addition.

[00:03:25]US District Judge Mark Scarsi noted in his ruling that he had already rejected a previous challenge by Hunter Biden to the appointment of Special Counsel David Weiss.

[00:03:36]The judge said there is no valid basis for reconsideration of that decision."

[00:03:43]And in a related article, this from CNN.

[00:03:47]Judge Scarsi pointed out that there is no valid basis for reconsideration and that neither Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion nor Judge Cannon's order is binding precedent.

[00:04:00]So friends, there you have Trump appointed Judge Mark Scarsi refusing to apply the reasoning, the rationale, the ruling of Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon when she concluded, "Yeah, I don't think special counsel is a thing and I'm dismissing Donald Trump's criminal case." This ruling from Judge Scarsi, in a a very real sense, is him concluding, "Um Aileen Cannon, you're dead wrong."

[00:04:28]That is not surprising given that every other federal court judge, trial court judges, appellate court judges, when they've had to rule on whether special counsel is lawful, every single one has ruled, "Of course it's lawful."

[00:04:44]Except Judge Aileen Cannon.

[00:04:48]The good news, friends, Jack Smith has appealed Judge Cannon's dismissal of Donald Trump's classified documents, obstruction of justice, espionage case and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal will take that case up and decide it. And I'm quite sure they're going to reverse Judge Cannon yet again. They've done it before.

[00:05:08]They've concluded she's abused her discretion before in favor of Donald Trump, the very defendant who appointed her to the federal bench.

[00:05:18]And I really hope that if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Judge Cannon and reinstates the criminal case in Florida against Donald Trump, that they say, "And it shall be assigned to a different trial court judge, one who is fair, independent, impartial, one whose impartiality can't reasonably be questioned." That's the federal standard for when a judge must remove themselves from a case. That's what I hope the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals does. Now, let me finish up with this because I have to talk about that part of the article that we read that said, "Oh, and Clarence Thomas's little note that he wrote." I don't find that persuasive either. That is not binding on me. That's what Judge Scarcity said. You may recall what he's referring to there. Because this was Clarence Thomas abusing his judicial discretion and authority. Here's why.

[00:06:16]Remember that Donald Trump filed a motion saying, "I've got presidential immunity. I can commit all the crimes I want against the American people and I can't be prosecuted." And six of the radical right-wing Supreme Court Justices bought into a version of that horrifically. That is the kind of Supreme Court precedent that now joins the ranks of Dred Scott, Plessy versus Ferguson, Korematsu, horrific opinions that must be overturned in the future.

[00:06:45]And that one will be. But in that case, which had nothing to do with the appointment of special counsel, nothing, whether it was lawful or not, Justice Clarence Thomas abused his judicial discretion and wrote a little note in what's called the separate concurring opinion that was completely irrelevant to the presidential immunity issue being litigated and resolved in that case. And said, "Um psst, Aileen Cannon, I I think you should conclude that special counsel's not a thing, not lawful." He put that in a separate concurring opinion. He didn't say, "Psst, Aileen Cannon." But the message was sent. And right after that, what did Aileen Cannon do? Dismissed the case.

[00:07:25]You know, if that doesn't highlight the need for, at a minimum, a mandatory code of ethics to apply to Supreme Court Justices and sanctions, penalties when they violate that code of ethics, as Justice Clarence does early and often, as Justice Alito has done several times failing to make the required financial disclosures when the money from Republican billionaire donors and the in-kind contributions came flooding in to the Alitos and the Thomases of the Supreme Court.

[00:07:58]You know, we have got to fix what's broken on the Supreme Court. The rot at the top.

[00:08:04]We've got to deal with it because particularly when it comes to Supreme Court Justices