Talk:Aileen Cannon

. Her impartiality has been called into question by several legal scholars, leading for calls for her to recuse herself from the case.

Since some users dont use this talk page I will. I belive this should be removed. The "experts" quoted in the articles used as evidence are left wing twitter activists with no legal expertise. Therefore it should be removed. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek: a trio of legal experts—Norm Eisen, attorney and former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic; Richard W. Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer, and Fred Wertheimer, attorney and president of Democracy 21—said Cannon should recuse herself from the classified documents proceedings, or the DOJ should launch proceedings to have her recused.

Salon:

• Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore, who recently resigned from the team, told the outlet that the allegations in the indictment are damning.
• Carol Lam, a former federal judge and U.S. attorney, told MSNBC that Cannon's earlier rulings suggests "she bends over backwards a little bit more for the former president" but how that would play out in a trial "remains to be seen."

Daily Beast:

• Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance [tweeted] that Cannon’s latest order "may tee up the issue of her fitness on this case.
• Andrew Weissmann, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, suggested the same—[tweeting] that Cannon's order is "off base."

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Carol Lam-MSNBC Contributor(Leftist)

Norman L. Eisen(worked with democrats for the first impeachment)

Richard W. Painter wrote an anti trump book

Fred Wertheimer left wing activist.

None of these people should be considered impartial considering they are anti Trump which make them impossible to be non biasewd. I would say the same for pro trump. Basic research shows they are not reliable. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Joyce Vance is a Obama alum and left wing twitter activist.

Basic resarch will show that 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Salon is a left wing magazine wikipedia's own page on the site says that.

Daily Beast is another left wing site. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

We should probably have a section about this in the article. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this is clearly relevant. – bradv 16:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry of people giving opinions about how high-profile, ongoing legal cases are conducted. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I would leave all this commentary out, both here and in the Tanya S. Chutkan article and in any similar BLPs on judges. Wait until the cases are over and more dispassionate analyses are available. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NOTNEWS do you think applies here? – bradv 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't think that reflexive, as-it-happens commentary on pre-trial motions has any lasting value. Wait and see what happens. If some of her rulings get reversed by a higher court, as happened last year, then that can be included. There's no rush. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with Wasted Time R, much as I roll my eyes at Cannon's rulings. Let's wait and see. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These are relevant expert opinions and the reason for removing them is incorrect and invalid. Andre🚐 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't.

Just because you believe something is relevant doesn't mean you are correct I belive that two users don't have the power to change somehting that is being debated. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These expert opinions, from very high profile people, are clearly significant and need to be adressed. Her role in Trump's cases has become a major debate in itself. Were it not for that role, she would be a very obscure figure that virtually noone had heard of, so most of her notability is derived from her involvement in Trump's cases. --Tataral (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution to this is to list some sort of descriptor for these people to be on the Left - so the reader can balance their opinions, especially in the lede. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed that says they are on the left. Andre🚐 17:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We should keep the body and lead content. This is a major feature of reliable source coverage for the past month, and I have no reason to doubt that it will continue. We might add some content to the body about other legal experts defending her, especially after she made some decisions unfavorable to the defense (see, e.g., this NYT piece). NOTNEWS discussion are tough—we often have reasonable but opposite interpretations of the policy. I do think the arguments based on sleuthing the political leanings of source authors should be discarded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

I restored this and it was immediately removed again, in this edit. Any concern about the in-line sourcing can easily be addressed, per this thread. I'm not going to engage in this edit-war. @Starship.paint:, or any volunteer, please restore this article content. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I still believe it's best to leave it out, regardless of how many cites you can pile on. Legal pundits and their opinions are dime a dozen, what really matters is what happens in court and whether any of her decisions later get overturned or otherwise criticized by an appeals court. Wait and see what happens. Same applies to the Tanya S. Chutkan article and the Arthur Engoron article if there was one and the same for any other judge presiding over any other high-profile case. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that happens in court will ever demonstrate anything othere than expert opinion that she was biased. There have been no credible expert claims of bias by the other two magistrates in RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored it. It's reliable enough and uncontroverisal. Andre🚐 16:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added several sources. Andre🚐 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, most of the current sources are still not good enough. (1) WP:RSP: Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. (2) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. (3) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. (4) New Yorker - OK. (5) Opinion article in the New York Times. (6) WP:NEWSBLOG by MSNBC that certainly reads like a column - "whacked-out rulings for Trump". So, only one (4th sources) of out six are okay. What we need are news articles from reliable sources. Also I am not sure how anyone would think that questioning a judge's impartiality is uncontroversial. starship.paint (RUN) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

... and further down the article: (7) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. (8) Plus a Salon article appearing in Yahoo News. starship.paint (RUN) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New Yorker plus actual Yahoo News gives decent content from five people, Stephen Gillers, Richard Painter, Norman Eisen, Fred Wertheimer, Laurence Tribe. Looks better now. starship.paint (RUN) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'm fine with some legal experts per your changes. But the opinion article was a prosecutor with expertise, so a relevant expert. That's why I threw that one in. Andre🚐 23:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that indeed, the opinion article was written by a prosecutor. I just feel that it is stronger to have a news article presenting opinions and calling the person a "legal expert". starship.paint (RUN) 12:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Career

Edit reverted on October 12, 2022 left the last name of the individual that was deleted in a previous sentence. Could someone adjust the last sentence in Career referring to person. Erin1973 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Early life and education. Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

In Section

   Early life and education

there is a Reference

   <ref name=Wilner>

The article in the Reference is archived. But on 2023-02-14 the URL for the original article was still valid.

Into the Cite template, please insert

   | url-status=live

71.162.138.11 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I've noticed this issue before. If live, default url-status should be "live" and it should show the live page, not the archived version. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)