My understanding (from reading Robert's newsletter and other sources) is that Trump and his attorneys have NOT submitted either evidence or a sworn affidavit claiming executive privilege because to do so would subject them to perjury since there is zero, ZERO record of any such action taken by Trump. Based on the foregoing, Cannon's rul…
My understanding (from reading Robert's newsletter and other sources) is that Trump and his attorneys have NOT submitted either evidence or a sworn affidavit claiming executive privilege because to do so would subject them to perjury since there is zero, ZERO record of any such action taken by Trump. Based on the foregoing, Cannon's ruling that gives any weight to Trump's claim demonstrates contempt for the rules of evidence and law.
Also, in her decision, Cannon hypocritically claims that "evenhanded procedure does not demand unquestioning trust in the determinations of the Department of Justice." She then goes on to say: "Based on the nature of this action, the principles of equity require the Court to consider the specific context at issue, and that consideration is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by Plaintiff."
In the eyes of Cannon (and the Federalist Society), the sworn affidavits of government officials hold less weight than the unsubstantiated claims of a corrupt, defeated president who intentionally defied a grand jury subpoena and deserves special treatment because he was once (with Vladimir Putin's help) elected president.
My understanding (from reading Robert's newsletter and other sources) is that Trump and his attorneys have NOT submitted either evidence or a sworn affidavit claiming executive privilege because to do so would subject them to perjury since there is zero, ZERO record of any such action taken by Trump. Based on the foregoing, Cannon's ruling that gives any weight to Trump's claim demonstrates contempt for the rules of evidence and law.
Also, in her decision, Cannon hypocritically claims that "evenhanded procedure does not demand unquestioning trust in the determinations of the Department of Justice." She then goes on to say: "Based on the nature of this action, the principles of equity require the Court to consider the specific context at issue, and that consideration is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by Plaintiff."
In the eyes of Cannon (and the Federalist Society), the sworn affidavits of government officials hold less weight than the unsubstantiated claims of a corrupt, defeated president who intentionally defied a grand jury subpoena and deserves special treatment because he was once (with Vladimir Putin's help) elected president.