Can Judge Cannon Preside Fairly Over the Trump Trial?

Doing the work, whatever it may be

Above the Law

Image

To the Editor

Re "Judge's record in Trump case raises concern" (front page, 15 June):

Aileen Cannon is not qualified to preside over the documents case. This case is so important and of such great importance that it requires a judge who has more experience, skills and is unquestionably fair.

A judge must recuse themselves if there is a reasonable reason to doubt her impartiality. This rule and the ethics law of federal judges in Florida also require this. If she does not recuse herself, she is violating such vital and clear rules and risks turning the trial into a national controversy.

A conservative appeals court has already reversed Judge Cannon twice for rulings she made in an earlier phase of the case. She had made rulings which were both legally incorrect and showed obvious favoritism towards Donald Trump. Americans cannot view her as impartial or competent.

She can slow down the proceedings, give rulings that are favorable to Mr. Trump’s defense, even if they have a questionable basis. And she could even render a guilty verdict, but not impose any prison sentence on Mr. Trump, despite the guidelines. We cannot accept the risk of such a perversion.

T.R. Jahns
Hemet, Calif.

To the Editor

As anyone else, I was disgusted by Judge Aileen Cannon's decision last year to award Donald Trump a Special Master to review documents seized from the Justice Department. But I am equally upset with the liberal media's coverage of her in the last few weeks, which portrays her as inexperienced and a Trump lackey.

I don't say she's an ideal candidate. News outlets must present all facts fairly. She worked as a federal prosecutor in the United States for seven years. Isn't that experience in criminal proceedings? Does it not stand to reason that she might be influenced by the criticism from the appellate court to act more impartially this time in order to protect her reputation?

What about the fact she was rated as 'qualified' at the American Bar Association when she was appointed, and confirmed by a vote 56 to 21 including 12 Democrats. She holds a B.A. She has a B.A. What is your degree from the University of Michigan?

It would be reasonable for her to resign based on both the appearance of bias that she has created and the fact that she is a Trump appointee. Responsible news media shouldn't descend into panic or hysteria. Liberals cannot criticize the polarized nature of American politics without examining and reporting both sides fairly.

Steve Benko
Southport, Conn.

To the Editor

It is important to consider whether Aileen Cannon's involvement in a criminal case involving her president could be a conflict. Other judges have presided in cases that involved the presidents they appointed, but this case presents issues unique to law, politics, and legal ethics.

We should be skeptical of the impartiality, especially at a moment when conflict questions have been raised about our highest ranking judges. This defendant promoted an inexperienced, unqualified judge through a system based on political loyalty. We should at least err cautiously and reassign this case.

We'd rather learn from our mistakes than make the same mistake again.

Ron Meyers
New York

Elizabeth Gilbert's Novel, Self Censored

Image

To the Editor

Re: 'Best-Selling author Delays a Novel She Sets in Siberia' (Arts June 14)

It's wrong to delay the publication of Elizabeth Gilbert’s new novel because it is set in Russia on many levels - ethically, intellectually and pragmatically.

I do not doubt her sincerity when she believes that this action would be viewed as noble. Like so many other examples of this kind of performative virtue-signaling, it actually shows the opposite of what was meant.

This kind of self-censorship is intellectually bankrupt, illiberal and infantilizing. It is also a total lack of moral imagination, which, for a writer, is the most offensive.

Mark Bessoudo
London

Doing the work, whatever it may be

Image

To the Editor

Jessica Grose's article 'Doing the Work and the Obsession with Superficial Self Improvement' (Opinion Newsletter, nytimes.com June 3) is a good read.

This article was very interesting, but I am curious as to the wider implications of the work.

I have lived with mental illness since my 20s and am not ashamed to use this phrase. It is important for me.

The article fails to capture the complexity of why people choose to share or not their mental health journeys and the importance of community. To combat loneliness, mental health issues and other problems that affect adults and children in America, Americans must strengthen their social connections and sense of community. Recent evidence from the surgeon general's recent report on loneliness and isolation supports the risks.

We must not allow the nomenclature to create an additional barrier in acknowledging that it takes courage to share and that this courage has resulted in a more healthy dialogue about mental health issues.

We may need to do our personal work while focusing on the community to feel less isolated, more alive and connected as we emerge from this pandemic.

Lindy Mockovak
San Francisco

To the Editor

It's time to rethink how you refer to your journalists using Mr., Mrs., and Ms. with the occasional Mx. It's not in every article so it is appreciated. It would be more respectable if this distinction was removed from all reporting.

This is not the progressive reporting I associate with The New York Times. I suggest you use the last name on second reference without distinguishing it in binary.

This would, I think, be more respectable for all. These binary distinctions create an "othering" that makes it harder for people who just want to be themselves and don't fall into these categories.

Greensboro, N.C.

Above the Law

To the Editor

I'm tired of reading and hearing the phrase "No one is above law." Anyone who lives in America knows that certain groups of people have been above the law for a long time.

In the town where we used to live, young whites caught with drugs were given a slap on the wrist before being sent home. In the same situation, members of minorities are arrested.

Some people have also been elevated above the law because they can afford expensive lawyers. If you look at yourself in the mirror, this phrase is hollow.