Aileen
Cannon
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
woke
up
this
morning
and
decided
that
she’d
be
only
half
lawless.
Which
is
an
improvement
on
her
prior
batting
average!
Instead
of
telling
the
DOJ
it
can’t
publish
the
entire
special
counsel
report
on
the
Trump
investigations,
she
only
purports
to
control
half
of
it.
See,
what
were
you
libs
whining
about?
It’s
just
a
federal
district
judge
policing
the
interactions
between
the
executive
and
legislative
branches,
no
biggie!
Judge
Cannon
was
confirmed
to
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
after
Trump
lost
the
2020
election,
and
she
rose
to
prominence
by
inventing
jurisdiction
to
allow
Trump
to
challenge
the
sufficiency
of
the
Mar-a-Lago
search
warrant.
When
the
case
was
eventually
assigned
to
her,
she
spent
a
year
abusing
the
special
counsel
and
then
dismissed
it
after
discovering
that
special
counsels
were
illegal.
That
dismissal
is
on
appeal
to
the
11th
Circuit,
but
the
DOJ
dropped
the
charges
against
Trump
when
he
won
the
election
in
2024,
leaving
his
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
holding
the
bag.
The
pendency
of
the
appeal
gave
the
dipshit
henchmen
a
hook
to
challenge
the
report,
which
they
did
in
Judge
Cannon’s
courtroom
natch,
as
well
as
at
the
11th
Circuit.
Without
holding
a
hearing,
soliciting
a
response
from
the
government,
or
even
going
through
the
four-factor
test
for
injunctive
relief,
Judge
Cannon
enjoined
the
government
distributing
the
report.
And
to
top
it
off,
she
reserved
three
days
after
the
11th
Circuit
weighed
in
to
take
another
crack
at
it.
The
DOJ
informed
both
the
trial
judge
and
the
appellate
panel
that
the
report
was
divided
into
two
volumes:
Volume
1,
which
deals
with
the
election
interference
case
in
DC;
and
Volume
2,
which
deals
with
the
stolen
documents
case
in
Florida
dismissed
by
Cannon.
Volume
1
was
intended
for
public
release,
and
Volume
2
reserved
for
in
camera
review
by
the
heads
of
the
House
and
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
during
the
pendency
of
the
criminal
case.
On
Thursday
night,
the
11th
Circuit
denied
the
henchmen’s
motion
for
an
injunction,
but
refused
the
DOJ’s
request
to
order
Judge
Cannon
to
knock
it
off.
Instead
the
unnamed
panel
instructed
the
government
to
appeal
her
ruling,
which
they
did.
The
henchmen
have
taken
multiple
bizarre
—
not
to
say
dubiously
legal
—
positions
in
these
proceedings.
In
their
first
motion,
they
stated
as
fact
that
AG
Garland
would
release
the
entire
special
counsel
report
publicly,
violating
their
due
process
rights,
by
poisoning
the
jury
pool,
and
also
the
Presidential
Transition
Act
and
the
Executive
Vesting
Clause.
After
the
DOJ
informed
the
courts
that
it
only
intended
to
release
Volume
1
to
the
public, the
henchmen
switched
tactics.
They
adamantly
insisted
that
they
were
mentioned
in
Volume
1,
and
they
argued
that
their
cases
would
be
damaged
by
congressional
leaks
if
Volume
2
were
shared
with
anyone
outside
the
DOJ.
When
the
DOJ
responded
with
evidence
that
the
henchmen
were
not
mentioned
at
all
in
Volume
1,
they
pivoted
again
in
their
reply
brief.
This
time
they
argued
that
dirtying
up
Trump,
by
reminding
Americans
of
that
time
he
tried
to
overthrow
the
government,
was
unfair
to
his
prior
co-conspirators:
“The
protective
order
principle
applies
fully
where
the
government
seeks
to
‘try’
in
a
court
of
public
opinion
a
figure
it
identified
as
a
co-conspirator
in
this
case.”
And,
uhhh,
what
if
the
attorneys
reviewing
the
report
are
too
green
to
appreciate
that,
if
you
read
between
the
lines,
the
election
interference
case
is
actually
all
about
Trump’s
body
man
shifting
boxes
into
and
out
of
the
storage
locker
in
Mar-a-Lago
and
trying
to
delete
the
security
camera
footage
after
it
got
subpoenaed?
The
attorneys
asserting
no
connection
do
not
know
the
significance
of
certain
matters
addressed
in
the
Report;
they
do
not
adequately
understand
the
connections
between
the
two
cases
and
their
respective
investigations;
they
do
not
have
a
well-versed
understanding
of
the
evidence
and
the
potential
witnesses.
There
is
anticipated
to
be
overlap
between
the
witnesses
used
in
the
respective
cases.
The
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
respective
cases
are
inextricably
intertwined
insofar
as
the
conduct
targeted
in
both
investigations
was
occurring
around
the
same
time.
This
morning,
with
her
three-day
stay
set
to
expire,
Judge
Cannon
issued
her
ruling.
Even
she
had
to
admit
Trump’s
cronies
hadn’t
come
up
with
a
single
marginally
pretextual
reason
to
bottle
up
Volume
1.
But
she
insists
that
Volume
2
“presents
contested
factual
and
legal
issues
that
must
be
resolved
in
an
orderly,
expedited
basis,
following
full
briefing
and
a
hearing,”
which
she
scheduled
for
this
Friday.
That
is,
in
effect,
an
order
quashing
the
release
of
report
to
Congress,
since
Trump
will
be
sworn
in
on
Monday,
and
he
will
instruct
the
DOJ
to
burn
the
thing.
Indeed,
he’s
already
weighed
in
with
amicus
briefs
at
both
the
District
and
Circuit
courts
claiming
that
the
reports
are
illegal
political
interference.
As
has
Jeff
“the
Oil
Spill”
Clark
who
busted
in
last
night
demanding
that
Judge
Cannon
enjoin
the
release
of
the
election
interference
report
because
it
might
prejudice him.
It’s
also
a
constitutional
crisis
to
have
a
wacked
out
trial
judge
in
Florida
telling
the
AG
that
he
can’t
share
the
conclusions
of
a
vital
national
security
investigation
with
Congress.
Particularly
since
that
report
documents
the
behavior
of
multiple
Trump
administration
nominees,
including
Kash
Patel,
his
pick
to
lead
the
FBI.
When
Patel
was
working
at
the
Epoch
Times,
a
Chinese
ex-pat
money
laundering
operation
attached
to
a
rightwing
media
company,
he
publicly
claimed
to
have
seen
Trump
declassify
the
documents
at
issue.
But
he
took
the
Fifth
before
the
grand
jury
investigating
this
case,
and
was
eventually
immunized
and
forced
to
testify
by
Judge
Beryl
Howell.
His
conduct
here
is
certainly
germane
to
the
confirmation
battle,
and
Congress
has
a
right
to
see
it.
The
11th
Circuit
has
shown
no
inclination
to
rouse
itself
for
this
task.
But
maybe
Trump
—
whoops,
I
mean
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
—
would
like
to
take
one
more
flyer
at
SCOTUS
to
see
if
they
can’t
peel
Justice
Barrett
off
to
block
release
of
Volume
1.
US
v.
Trump [SDFL
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
US
v.
Trump [11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]