Gelbach noted that Cannon listed off four elements that Trump must establish to get an injunction, and then doesn’t find that Trump has some of them.
“Her basis for finding ‘a’ likelihood is, she says, contained in part III of her Discussion, at pages 14-18,” he continued. “But part III is full of couched language like ‘arguably’ and ‘the Court is not convinced’ and ‘evidence from which to call that premise into question.'”
It made him ask how “likelihood” could be part of a court ruling. “In sum, Judge Cannon *correctly (sic) stated the legal requirement of a substantial likelihood *then declared only that she’d found ‘a likelihood,’ based on a discussion in which she makes no such finding, repeatedly indicating uncertainty about the merits of the review process. That alone looks like [an] abuse of discretion and thus reversible error to me. I assume that will be one point in DOJ’s inevitable appeal of the preliminary injunction to CA11.”
“This is one of the strongest critiques — that the order doesn’t address the threshold issue of how executive privilege applies against executive inquiry,” wrote attorney Ken White
“The judge shut down, for now, [the] review of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago. The criminal investigation existed before that and will continue on other channels as before,” said White.
But it was a former prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, who issued a blistering takedown.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-judge-cannon-obstruction-justice/