Before indicting Donald Trump last year for allegedly mishandling classified documents, federal prosecutors had to decide where to bring the charges: Washington, DC, or Florida.

Ultimately, they charged the former president in Florida, a decision that has proven to be a fateful one — underscored by the vastly different approaches taken by DC judges as compared to the federal judge now presiding over the criminal case in Florida.

Those approaches became apparent in the past week as opinions were unsealed from two DC federal judges indicating how much more quickly and harshly for Trump the case might have played out had it remained in Washington.

Bradley Moss, a DC-based lawyer with extensive national security experience, said that the ruling from Howell provided Cannon a “clear road map” to consider the attorney-client privilege issues.

But Cannon hasn’t even scheduled a hearing on the topic, which the parties began arguing over in court papers in February.

“That she continues to sit on the matter is inexcusable,” Moss said.

  • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    6 months ago

    The Florida Judge wasn’t corrupt enough for their liking. The Florida Judge wouldn’t overlook their little photo shoot with the fake classified documents they spread out all over the floor, documents that the fbi brought with them to the raid to help with the propaganda campaign

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Most reasonable people would regard a judge a defendant appointed as corrupt.

      Others might suspect a judge that ruled in favor of the defendant who was unanimously overruled on appeal as unfit.

      What do you think of Judge Cannon?

      • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think she’s calling it like she sees it. How do let a trial go forward after the prosecution has admitted to evidence tampering?