Gone are the days when questioning whether a judge in a Trump indictment case can be truly impartial is said to be unacceptable because the cast of MSNBC's Friday special coverage on the matter sounded the alarm whether Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon can truly be fair and neutral given some of her previous rulings.
Diaz-Balart presented the news to NBC senior executive editor for national security David Rohde and asked for his thoughts, “And now NBC can confirm indeed that Judge Aileen Cannon will be presiding over this case. Just thought, your reaction to that?”
Not thrilled with the news, Rohde declared that “I'm concerned and if she, you know, handles it through the trial she made some very unusual rulings in the course of the litigation surrounding the search warrant.”
Rohde is alluding to Cannon’s decision to appoint a special master back in September. After Diaz-Balart interjected to add that Cannon was “appointed by Trump,” Rohde declined to go that far, “So, Judge Cannon, you know, I want to be fair to her. Maybe she can, you know, rule in an unbiased way but she made several rulings overturned very quickly by her superiors in federal appellate court that were seen as unusual.”
Wrapping up his remarks, Rohde displayed an anti-Trump knee-jerk reflex when it came to defining what constitutes a fair trial, “She has a moment, you know, a chance here in American history to oversee a fair trial and I hope she does that.”
Co-hosting with Diaz-Balart was Ana Cabrera and she asked former top Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann, “Andrew, my understanding is judges like this would be selected randomly, so it just happened to end up back in her lap, but given her history in the case, would this be a situation in which because of public perception of, you know, whatever, they would choose to intentionally shift this away from her court?”
That was a question that the media wouldn’t dare ask in the New York case because the judge has a daughter that worked for the Biden campaign.
After declaring that it was possible Cannon got the case because of her previous involvement in it, Weissmann raised the idea that she could be “asked to recuse herself because of her prior service on the case” and described Rohde’s assessment as “very polite.”
Weissmann attempted to argue that his criticisms of Cannon are not that of a partisan activist, “she was reversed not once, but twice by an extremely conservative appellate court and the decisions were, to put it bluntly, scathing. I mean, she really got the law completely wrong and that's not me saying that, that is the Court of Appeals.”
He concluded by declaring that Cannon does not appear to be up to the challenge, “So, the idea that she's back on the case, it would certainly be a very large challenge to see her rise to the occasion, "I always thought after the first reversal she might rise to the occasion but that didn't happen and she had to be reversed again, so it will be interesting to see whether she stays on the case, I think that's still an open issue.”
Cannon was presented with an unprecedented and politically sensitive case involving a former president who is currently running again, she issued a ruling, it got reversed, that isn’t definitive proof of partiality.
This segment was sponsored by Subway.
Here is a transcript for the June 9 show:
MSNBC The Indictment of Donald Trump
6/9/2023
11:27 AM ET
JOSE DIAZ-BALART: And now NBC can confirm indeed that Judge Aileen Cannon will be presiding over this case. Just thought, your reaction to that?
DAVID ROHDE: I'm concerned and if she, you know, handles it through the trial she made some very unusual rulings in the course of the litigation surrounding the search warrant.
DIAZ-BALART: Appointed by Trump.
ROHDE: Appointed by Trump and met me just, again -- I just -- this is, again, a huge moment in American history. Dozens of judges, including Trump-appointed judges, rejected his claims in 2020 that the election had been stolen. The judiciary upheld the 2020 election. The judiciary was the strongest branch, almost, in defending democracy.
So, Judge Cannon, you know, I want to be fair to her. Maybe she can, you know, rule in an unbiased way but she made several rulings overturned very quickly by her superiors in federal appellate court that were seen as unusual.
Andrew can speak about this more. So, she has a moment, you know, a chance here in American history to oversee a fair trial and I hope she does that.
ANA CABRERA: Andrew, my understanding is judges like this would be selected randomly, so it just happened to end up back in her lap, but given her history in the case, would this be a situation in which because of public perception of, you know, whatever, they would choose to intentionally shift this away from her court?
ANDREW WEISSMANN: So I think there's still some unanswered questions. One, was this a complete random selection. The idea that out of, you know, a dozen or so judges it just happened to then go to the same judge and magistrate judge could happen mathematically, but seems unlikely.
The other was whether somehow it got related to her because she had this civil case before, but usually criminal cases and civil cases don't relate to each other. So that could happen. And then it's possible that it was just random.
To your point, whether she stays on the case or whether she either recuses herself voluntarily or is asked to recuse herself because of her prior service on the case, I think still remains to be seen and I think David was very polite in describing her rulings.
I was-- and others were very critical of her decisions. You have to remember it is unusual to be reversed in the way that she was, but she was reversed not once, but twice by an extremely conservative appellate court and the decisions were, to put it bluntly, scathing. I mean, she really got the law completely wrong and that's not me saying that, that is the Court of Appeals. So, the idea that she's back on the case, it would certainly be a very large challenge to see her rise to the occasion.
I always thought after the first reversal she might rise to the occasion but that didn't happen and she had to be reversed again, so it will be interesting to see whether she stays on the case, I think that's still an open issue.
