Judge Cannon extends hearing over Trump's claim to invalidate the appointment of the special counsel.
Upcoming hearings in the federal criminal national security case against a former president have brought an unexpected change: Judge Aileen Cannon announced that political partisans and legal scholars who aren't directly involved with the trial can join the oral arguments on June 21st. This elevation of arguments in a criminal case which first started a year ago, is likely to prolong the process till possibly next year.
Similar requests for exceptions to the case have been rejected in various places across the US: Hunter Biden's attorney didn't succeed with judges in California and Delaware, while Paul Manafort's arguments and appeal on the authority of special counsel Robert Mueller failed. Andrew Miller, a former associate of Roger Stone, also faced the same fate.
Yet, Cannon's willingness to entertain such challenges deviates from the norm, with other federal judges moving quickly to trials and legal proceedings. For example, special counsel David Weiss has been conducting the trial against Hunter Biden in Delaware this week, eight months after the indictment.
This uncommon move by Cannon is happening at a time when Republicans are publicly pressurizing Attorney General Merrick Garland on his use of special counsels. This issue, currently under investigation in the Southern District of Florida federal court, will for sure remain a political topic until Cannon actually rules on the constitutional validity of the special counsel's power to prosecute a defendant on June 21st.
Cannon's approach to the case differs from other federal judges, who normally progress swiftly with the trials and legal proceedings, especially those led by special council's offices. Though five such offices have been formed since Trump's presidency.
Unlike other judges, Cannon has taken her time in addressing pressing pre-trial issues related to Trump and his two co-defendants. Moreover, it's quite unusual for a federal trial judge to invite a third-party unaffiliated with the case to participate in the arguments of the defendant's challenges to the case. Typically, such roles are reserved for the defendant's legal team.
Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, finds the entire process pretty absurd. "The fact that these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. The fact that third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is even more absurd," he expressed to CNN.
Despite that, Judge Cannon has provided space to three separate groups of lawyers to voice their concerns and opinions at the upcoming hearing. Two of these groups defend Trump's stance of dismissing the case against him, claiming that the special counsel doesn't have the legal right to prosecute. A third group supports the Department of Justice's use of a special counsel.
Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, both ex-Republican-appointed US attorneys general, are part of the groups advocating Trump's side, providing valuable insights given their past experience leading the Justice Department. These groups will get 30 minutes each to present their arguments in addition to the Justice Department and defense attorneys, as per the court records.
Read also:
In this context, Judge Cannon has granted an unusual request by allowing political partisans and legal scholars who aren't directly involved in the trial to participate in the oral arguments for Trump's challenge to the special counsel's appointment on June 21st. Despite the rapid progress of similar cases in other federal courts, Judge Cannon's approach has deviated from the norm, offering an opportunity for three separate groups of lawyers to voice their concerns and opinions during the hearing.
