Call me crazy, but maybe presidents who get themselves indicted shouldn't have their criminal trials presided over by judges they themselves appointed.
60 cases were rejected after the 2020 election (by trump & non-trump judges). It's not who appoints them. It's the morals of each judge! That said, Republicans should not be allowed to pick any until 2040 (at the soonest!).
Call me crazy, but maybe the federal judge presiding over the trial of an ex president on serious national security charges should have presided over more than four other criminal trials in her entire career.
I hope there is an active investigation into her and ideally wiretaps. I find it hard to believe that an inexperienced Judge with little courtroom experience is coming up with these delay tactics on her own.
This is about top secret documents after all...
I practiced law for 40 years and have always respected the federal judiciary, but the disgraceful ethical failures of Thomas and Alito, and Cannon’s shielding of Trump in the documents case are destructive in a way no foreign power could ever be
An ethical judge would have recused herself. But the Supreme Court itself flouts the principle that the givers of law must avoid even the appearance of bias, so why would we expect anything less than active bias from the lower courts?
