Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge presiding over the case accusing the former president of illegally retaining classified documents, has moved slowly and seemed confused at points during the case’s public court hearings, according to a New York Times reporter in the courtroom.

Seven public court hearings have taken place over the past 10 months, indicating that the case may not go to trial until after Election Day. If Donald Trump wins the presidency again, he will have the opportunity to dismiss the federal charges or pardon himself.

The stalling of the trial can be attributed to Cannon granting a serious hearing for every matter raised by Trump’s lawyers.

Alan Feur with the New York Times has sat in several of the court hearings and describes how Cannon “rarely issues rulings that explain her thinking in a way that might reveal her legal influences or any guiding philosophy.” In addition, Feur describes Cannon as often confused by requests and statements made by lawyers on both sides, having to ask them to repeat themselves multiple times.

Cannon has been on the bench for just four years and has very little experience in criminal cases. Even before being handed the classified documents case last June, she ruled that the investigation into Trump would be stalled until an independent arbiter sorted through the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago. However, an appeals court found Cannon’s ruling to be dubious and reversed it.

In an exchange with prosecutor Jay Bratt, Feur said Cannon did not appear to understand a straightforward legal concept called the Pinkerton rule, which Bratt clearly explained. Under this rule, all members of a conspiracy can be held accountable for any crimes committed by their co-conspirators, and Bratt said this would apply to Trump’s associations with co-defendants Walt Nauta Carlos De Oliveira.

Cannon has asked what authority Bratt had to apply the Pinkerton rule.

“So the authority is Pinkerton,” he said.

During last week’s hearing, Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, requested Cannon to order prosecutors to give him internal communications that would reveal the case brought against him was done out of revenge. Woodward said that, during a meeting two years ago at the Justice Department, Bratt threatened to interfere with a judgeship he applied for if he did not convince Nauta to cooperate against Trump.

Cannon asked exactly what Woodward wanted, and he said any messages that had mentioned his name were exchanged by prosecutors. The judge asked him to repeat himself “slowly.”

On Tuesday, Cannon denied a gag order request, made by special counsel Jack Smith, preventing Trump from making public statements about the FBI’s handling of its raid. Trump alleged the FBI used deadly force against him during the search two years ago at Mar-a-Lago.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Smith has a chance to refile the request.

Since April, attorneys have warned that Cannon could face possible removal from the case as Smith allegedly has passed his “breaking point.”