Judge Aileen Cannon slammed after denying GOP bid to intervene in Donald Trump's documents case

PALM BEACH, FLORIDA: In a surprise development in former President Donald Trump's legal battles, US District Judge Aileen Cannon has denied an attempt by Republican attorneys general to intervene in the ongoing case regarding Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents.

This came as a blow to efforts aimed at shielding Trump from a potential gag order sought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The motion and Judge Aileen Cannon's decision

On Monday, June 17, Judge Cannon issued a decisive ruling, rejecting a motion filed by 24 Republican attorneys general from various states. The group, including prominent figures such as Florida's Ashley Moody and Iowa's Brenna Bird, sought to prevent the court from granting Special Counsel Jack Smith a gag order against Trump.

The motion was aimed at protecting what they described as Trump's right to free speech during his presidential campaign.

In her official court document, Judge Cannon stated, "PAPERLESS ORDER denying 623 Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Special Counsel's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release 592. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/17/2024. (jf01) (Entered: 06/17/2024)."

The 24 Republican attorneys general, representing states including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, argued that a gag order would severely impede the democratic process.

Their motion emphasized the importance of candidates being able to speak freely about critical issues.

"Free and fair elections in the United States depend on candidates' ability to speak about important issues of the day," the attorneys general asserted in their motion. "Attempts to stop a candidate from speaking out harm more than just the candidate. They also hurt the voters, who are denied access to crucial information, and the States, which are responsible for managing elections."

Furthermore, the motion highlighted concerns over First Amendment rights, stating, "And when agents of one candidate seek a court order to muzzle discussion on matters relating to important electoral issues, that restraint raises even more fundamental First Amendment concerns."

Jack Smith's efforts to gag Donald Trump

The current legal battle stems from Trump's indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith for allegedly mishandling classified documents discovered at his Mar-a-Lago residence. In light of Trump's public remarks, Smith has insisted that a gag order is necessary to protect law enforcement agents from potential harm.

Smith's request for a gag order followed Trump's claims that the FBI used "DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE" during the Mar-a-Lago raid in August 2022. These statements, according to Smith, created a "grossly misleading impression" and posed a "significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger" to federal agents involved in the investigation.

On May 24, Smith filed a motion to modify Trump's bond conditions, arguing for the gag order as a necessary measure. Although initially dismissed by Judge Cannon, Smith renewed his efforts last month, emphasizing the risks posed by Trump's inflammatory rhetoric.

Trump's legal team responded to Smith's request in a motion on Friday, arguing that he "seeks to restrict President Donald Trump's campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month," Newsweek reported.

Reactions to Judge Aileen Cannon's response

Social media reactions to Judge Cannon's decision were varied.

"As she should. When he speaks out, it is only to demean the USA," one posted on X.

"So many double negatives!" another wrote.

"She's just afraid of removal from the case...she has more up by her sleeve I'm sure," a comment read.

"Won’t matter. She’s going to dismiss this whole thing somehow," someone else offered.

"She's a MAGA hack," another insisted.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.