According to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, the sheer length and breadth of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling on the Donald Trump stolen documents case makes it seem that it has been in the works for a suspicious amount of time.
Reacting to the bombshell ruling where Cannon asserted special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was not allowed under the Constitution, and using that as her reason for the dismissal, Rubin noted the amount of research and cites that made up the 93-page document showed it was not a rush job -- and that raised questions about when it was begun.
With the former president's lawyers questioning the legality of Smith prosecuting the case at a hearing just three weeks ago, Rubin raised her eyebrows at the timing.
ALSO READ: Possible VP pick Marco Rubio and other angsty GOPers nervous Trump will mess up convention
"After hearing oral arguments on this motion based on Jack Smith's allegedly unlawful appointment and appropriations of money to fund his office, she ordered an evidentiary hearing on another issue," she told MSNBC host José Díaz-Balart. "That led people to believe that, if she was going to have a days-long hearing seeking evidence on some other issue relevant to the case, that she was not going to dismiss the case outright based on the appointments clause and appropriations clause arguments."
"And yet the length of this opinion suggests that this has been in the works for some time," she pointed out. "Whatever one thinks about Judge Cannon, a 93-page opinion citing case law and briefs and constitutional texts does not emerge overnight."
"This is a serious piece of work involving the judge and likely her law clerk's assistance, but it's not something that one spends two weeks writing. It's something that someone spends usually several weeks writing," she claimed.
Watch the video below or at this link.
MSNBC 07 15 2024 10 27 35 youtu.be
