Loose Cannon Angrily Dismisses Walt Nauta Hearing. Was She Covering Up Her Own Lack Of Preparation?

Donald Trump’s been hanging his hat on Aileen Cannon being the judge chosen to preside over the classified documents case set to go forward in Florida. Cannon has been accused of bias towards Trump in the past, but more than that, she’s been accused of not being a seasoned enough jurist to be in charge of a case of this magnitude. Cannon has been caught making rookie mistakes, like failing to put “Not Guilty” on a jury form, which resulted in the dismissal of a case.

Today was another such instance of relative ineptitude. Lawfare is reporting that “the government sprung a new Garcia argument on Judge Cannon. She wasn’t pleased.” No, she was not and she admonished the government for wasting the court’s time. Andrew Weissman, however, pointed out that, “while government papers could have spelled things out more, Judge Cannon ignored thinking about the facts and issues before her, and so was surprised when the government raised matters that frankly would be fairly obvious to a more seasoned jurist.” Ouch.

Last Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida had scheduled two hearings in United States v. Trump—the case alleging that Donald Trump mishandled classified documents and obstructed justice—to apprise two co-defendants of potential conflicts their attorneys might be laboring under.

It had been clear from the outset that the issues surrounding co-defendant Waltine Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, Jr., were far thornier than those concerning co-defendant Carlos De Oliveira’s lawyer, John S. Irving IV. Still, few expected the afternoon to play out the way it did—with Nauta’s hearing being abruptly aborted after Assistant Special Counsel David Harbach raised weighty issues that hadn’t been laid out in the government’s briefs. Woodward protested that he had not had a chance to discuss the issues with Nauta; that the government’s position was wrong on the law; and that he could not properly advise his client until Judge Cannon ruled on whether she accepted the government’s theories.

Visibly and audibly irritated, Cannon curtly adjourned Nauta’s hearing, promising to issue a scheduling order calling for more briefing and another hearing. “I admonish the government for wasting the court’s time,” she said. […]

The potential conflicts here, which will be explored in depth below, stem from the fact that each of Trump’s co-defendants’ attorneys had also represented witnesses whom the government says it may call at trial. In Woodward’s case, he still represents two of the witnesses in question. Also, though not mentioned at Thursday’s hearing, attorneys Irving and Woodward are both being paid by the Trump-aligned Save America PAC, according to the government and independent reporting. The government argued in its prehearing brief relating to Woodward that this factor—being represented by a third party aligned with the lead defendant—can “heighten” the dangers of other conflicts of interest an attorney may have.

The article is lengthy and taken from the author’s notes, although it is as detailed as a transcript in many ways. Cannon’s issue and the government’s issue could easily be solved if all the co-defendants had separate counsel. This has been said from the outset. It is never a bad idea to err on the side of caution.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here on out. I still have the feeling that Jack Smith is giving Cannon enough rope to hang herself with. And I think she feels somewhat baited or she wouldn’t have reacted the way she did, with annoyance. We’ll certainly see. There’s nothing wrong with proceeding with an abundance of caution and making sure that there are no conflicts of interest between all the parties involved and their lawyers, particularly in a landmark and historical case such as this one is. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Cannon wants the case to be rife with minutiae that can be used to argue for an appeal down the road.

One thing is for absolutely certain: if she would simply recuse herself, she’s be off the hook once and for all. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. At least not yet.