Well, isn’t this a breath of fresh air? Judge Aileen Cannon, in a recent hearing, delivered a rip-roaring critique of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump. Now, here’s where it gets juicy: Judge Cannon highlighted a glaring double standard concerning President Joe Biden’s handling of similar materials. Hold onto your hats, folks; we’re in for a wild ride!
The case against Trump is an ongoing saga, accusing the former president of mishandling classified documents. But wait a minute, didn’t we just hear about Biden’s own mishandling of classified materials? Ah, yes, we did! In fact, Robert Hur’s explosive report on Biden’s mismanagement of classified documents has stirred up quite a storm.
According to Hur’s report, Biden’s actions were so severe that they prompted an Intelligence Community “damage assessment” to evaluate potential risks to national security. And yet, there’s no indictment against Biden. So, what gives?
Enter Judge Cannon, with her no-nonsense approach. She put the Department of Justice’s stance under the microscope, questioning why there was an absence of precedent for charging a former president or vice president under the Espionage Act for retaining classified records. She asked the million-dollar question: If Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents hasn’t led to charges, why should Trump’s case be different?
Cannon didn’t stop there. She dug deeper, questioning the very inception of the “crime” of willfully retaining national defense information. She pointed out that the date cited in Smith’s indictment coincided with the day Trump left office. Talk about a reality check!
But there’s more. Cannon also queried the official processes (or lack thereof) regarding a president’s security clearance post-tenure. Jay Bratt, representing the special counsel’s office, argued that a president’s clearance automatically expires at the end of their term. However, this contradicts the longstanding practices of how former government officials maintain clearances.
Journalist Kyle Becker summed it up perfectly: “A Trump guilty verdict would thus be a political outcome subverting the will of American voters. It would be the true ‘attack on democracy’ that the Democratic Party is dishonestly protesting about, while it interferes in America’s elections and compromises institutions such as the rule of law.”
Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins–she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.
January 20, 2021, the day he left office pic.twitter.com/BTiEo3WLce
— Julie Kelly ???????? (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024
Also of interest: Jay Bratt claiming there is no official process for a president to obtain or keep a security clearance. His argument is Trump's clearance automatically expired at the end of this term–which contradicts how former government officials maintained clearances long…
— Julie Kelly ???????? (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024
What we’re seeing here is a blatant double standard. It’s high time we applauded Judge Cannon for calling it as she sees it.