Prosecutors are calling for the recusal of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon from President Donald Trump’s federal classified documents trial. They argue that, as a Trump appointee, her perceived bias in favor of Trump raises concerns about perceived pro-Trump bias.
The calls for Connon’s bias-based recusal grew stronger following her decision to delay Trump’s pre-trial schedule for the case. Her decision would delay the trial, which is set to begin in May. Special counsel Jack Smith is now actively looking to remove her, although he will face many hurdles, and his chances of success are minimal.
Stephen E. Smith, a legal professor at Santa Clara University in California, expressed skepticism about the possibility of removing Judge Cannon from the case. He suggested that reassigning the case would be highly unlikely because the district’s chief judge is unlikely to intervene based on perceived mistakes. He also noted that the government making such a request would likely be unsuccessful.
Smith pointed out that filing a judicial misconduct complaint or seeking an interlocutory appeal is unlikely to succeed due to the nature of trial scheduling decisions. Overall, he considers the chances of Judge Cannon’s removal as very unlikely.
Cannon’s decision to delay the case follows extensive debates between the prosecutors and President Trump’s legal team. Cannon categorized the case as “complex,” which, under federal law, permits additional time for trial preparation. The case involves more than 1 million pages of evidence, and creating secure rooms for reviewing the documents from Mar-a-Lago poses another challenge.
The idea that Cannon must be removed for pro-Trump bias is laughable. Historically, judges are not recused from cases solely based on their expressed opinions or familiarity with the parties and events involved. Recusal is usually reserved for situations involving professional or personal relationships with the parties or attorneys, a judge’s bias towards the nature of the trial, public comments that compromise impartiality, or conflicting outside activities.
One example of a judge who should be recused is Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Chutkan, who presides over Trump’s Washington D.C. “election interference” case, is noted for her harsh treatment of the January 6 defendants who had the misfortune of appearing before her. In each of the eleven cases, she overruled the prosecution’s request for leniency and chose to sentence the defendants to jail time and impose harsh monetary judgments.
She has additionally publicly lamented that Trump remained free despite his “role” in the Capitol riots. There is no doubt Trump’s fate in her courtroom has already been decided, yet Trump’s legal team was mocked for calling for her recusal from the case.
In Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fanni Willis has been criticized for her anti-Trump bias. The House Judiciary Committee has voiced concerns about her blatant political motivations in the charges against Trump and his associates. They cited her campaign fundraising site featuring the Trump investigation before his indictment, which reflects her determined pursuit of Trump over allegations related to a phone call influencing the 2020 election results.
Additionally, the committee referenced remarks made by the forewoman of the special grand jury in the case, Emily Kohrs, who expressed excitement about subpoenaing President Trump. The release of a list of criminal charges against Trump by the Fulton County superior court clerk before the grand jury’s vote was also mentioned in the committee’s letter.
Each legal case against Trump has been carefully timed to hinder his campaign efforts. For instance, his Manhattan fraud trial is set for January 15, coinciding with the Iowa caucus. A related civil case is scheduled for January 29, just in time to disrupt his campaigning for the February 8 Nevada Republican caucuses. Furthermore, his Washington D.C. “election interference” case is set to commence on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.
Furthermore, the cases are predominantly in Trump-hating courts, denying him a fair chance with an impartial judge or jury. To compound matters, certain states, unfriendly to Trump, are using these trials as a pretext to pre-emptively disqualify him from appearing on the ballot, further decreasing his chances of beating President Joe Biden in a fair match.
It’s striking that concerns about “bias” emerge when a single judge delays a complex case to provide both the court and the defendant with ample preparation time. This story emphasizes the depths of Democrat hypocrisy, and it would be almost comical if it weren’t such a blatant attempt to stack the odds against Trump, leaving him with virtually no chance of legal success. It’s a sobering reflection of the current state of affairs in America, where “justice” is weaponized to remove a political opponent from the equation.