Former Attorney General William Barr’s scathing criticism of a major court victory for Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents drama escalates scrutiny of the judge who put the brakes on the investigation.   
    CNN Illustration/AP/Getty Images

  Barr was once seen as a facilitator of the then-President’s tendency to push the boundaries of presidential power.  But since Trump’s refusal to concede defeat to President Joe Biden in 2020, Barr has emerged as one of his fiercest and most influential critics.  For example, he angered Trump by publicly stating that there was no significant election fraud.  And his video testimony has emerged as one of the key weapons in the televised hearings of the House Select Committee investigating the US Capitol riot.   

  On Tuesday, Barr took aim at Trump-appointed Judge Eileen Cannon’s decision to grant Trump’s request for a “special master” to review for executive and legal privilege the material taken from his home in the FBI probe last month.   

  “The opinion, I think, was wrong and I think the government should appeal to it.  They are deeply flawed in a number of ways,” Barr told Fox on Tuesday.   

  It was the second time in just a few days that the former attorney general took to the conservative-favored network to hit Trump over the controversy.  And his remarks add to the swirl of outside interest in the next critical stages of this high-stakes legal process – the search for a third official to serve as a “master expert” and the Justice Department’s decision on whether to appeal Cannon.  decision, which would risk further delays for the investigation.   

  Barr’s honesty will have three main consequences.  First, such comments from a longtime political and legal conservative would add credence to growing questions not only about Cannon’s legal reasoning but whether Monday’s decision, which delivered several big wins for Trump, was motivated by loyalty to the president who appointed her.

‘Huge win’: McCabe on Trump’s special primary decision

  Second, his comments will renew intrigue over his personal transformation — from the attorney general who shielded Trump from the full blast of the Mueller report into his campaign’s ties to Russia in 2016 to one of the former president’s staunchest critics .  Whether Barr is driven by an effort to restore his reputation as a legitimate shooter, a desire to defend the Justice Department from Trump’s attacks, or simply being right about the facts is open to debate.   

  Third, Barr’s latest criticism of his former boss — including that he was wrong to have classified information at Mar-a-Lago — will likely earn him a new broad view from the former President and his associates.  Not that Barr cares, since he smiled when he told Fox that Trump’s definition of a RINO (Republican in Name Only) is anyone who doesn’t believe the election was stolen.   

  Barr’s criticism added to that of many legal experts about the quality and potential implications of Cannon’s legal opinion.   

  After last week calling Trump’s demand for a “special master” a “red herring,” Barr argued Tuesday that the fundamental elements of the case against Trump and those around him in Florida were already established.   

  “The government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charges are appropriate — that is, government documents were obtained, classified information was obtained and it was not handled properly,” Barr told Fox.   

  “And there is some evidence to suggest that they were deceived, and none of it really relates to the content of the documents.  It’s about the fact that there were documents there and the fact that they were classified and the fact that they were subpoenaed and never turned over.”   

  After Barr’s speech, the Washington Post reported Tuesday night that information about a foreign government’s nuclear capabilities was among the documents the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago, citing people familiar with the matter.   

  Granting the request for a special master — a step the Justice Department strongly opposed — is a major complication for prosecutors because it means they will be prevented from reviewing material taken from Trump’s residence for the time being.  The investigation into the potential damage to national security caused by Trump’s careless handling of the material was allowed to continue.   

  The relatively mundane task of finding an official to fill the role will be difficult, as filings in the case and Trump’s characteristically emotional response to its complications suggest a deal between the parties could be nearly impossible.  Then, given the highly classified nature of some material, the person concerned would need to have top security clearances, further narrowing the pool of potential candidates.  And the official must be willing to brave the barrage of aggression that could be thrown his way by the former president, who, in an incendiary appearance Saturday night, called FBI agents “vicious monsters” .   

  The special master’s role will also be complicated by the vague mandate he has been given so far by Cannon.  Issues of executive privilege – the president’s right to receive private information and advice from officials – have been sparsely debated, especially in the case of former top commanders.   

  On its face, a former president has no legitimate right to make such claims, especially about classified material that does not come from the White House.  But this is a matter that Trump himself may try to challenge in court as part of his frequent strategy of trying to delay impeachment.   

  The same issue weighs on the DOJ’s dilemma over whether to appeal the Cannon decision.  Many legal scholars have noted that her reasoning that Trump, as a former president, is at greater risk of reputational damage than ordinary Americans seemed to create an entirely new category of citizenship under the law.  It also provided a potential opening for defense lawyers in any unrelated case to argue that defendants should therefore be entitled to a special master – a situation that could significantly clog the criminal justice system.   

  For that reason, it may be up to the DOJ to appeal, even though such a move could doom the Mar-a-Lago case to a long line of court appeals that could last months and further delay the investigation.   

  Ryan Goodman, a professor at NYU Law, told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Tuesday afternoon that the department should make an urgent appeal to at least release the warrant on the use of material taken from Trump’s home.   

  But Goodman, like Barr, acknowledged the risk that mounting legal challenges could end in protracted litigation.  That would suit Trump, as it would push the case deeper into a 2024 campaign in which he is likely to run, further enabling his attempt to denounce the investigation as politically motivated.   

  The increasing scrutiny of Cannon’s actions means she will be the latest judge to be drawn into a maelstrom of political second-guessing in America’s Trump era.  How Cannon acted has fueled debate about her motives.  After the Trump team filed an undisclosed legal document seeking a special master, for example, the judge gave them time to refine their arguments.

All about the judge who granted Trump’s request for the “special master.”

  At times, her opinion on Monday appeared to mirror conservative criticism of the DOJ — including the question of whether Trump had suffered reputational damage from the investigation.  He wrote that there was a need to ensure “the integrity of an orderly process amid swirling allegations of bias and media leaks”.  The most adamant accusations of bias in this case came from Trump.   

  But at the same time, the idea circulating on the left that Cannon is nothing more than a hack and that she had to act to protect Trump’s political interests because she was appointed by him points to a slippery slope.  Since most judges are appointed by presidents, they are all subject to similar charges.  If the politicization of the judicial system continues, it would be completely impossible under these circumstances for any politician to face true justice for the perceived injustice.   

  Of course, this politicization of the legal system has been perpetuated by Trump.  Chief Justice John Roberts once issued an extraordinary statement reminding Trump while he was president that there were no Trump judges or Obama judges or Bush judges or Clinton judges, but that there was an independent judiciary.  The statement, released in 2018, followed one of the then-President’s frequent claims that a judge appointed by his predecessor was biased against him.   

  So if Cannon is unfairly maligned for alleged political bias, she is the victim of a trend started by the president who appointed her.