Aileen Cannon faces growing calls to be removed over "partisan" action
Aileen Cannon faces growing calls to be removed over "partisan" action
The judge overseeing Trump's classified-documents case has been condemned for chastising Jack Smith's office in legal filings.
The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified-documents trial has faced renewed calls to recuse herself from the case after she reprimanded Special Counsel Jack Smith's team for a word count on their legal filings.
Judge Aileen Cannon was appointed to the bench in 2018 by the former president. She has been criticized by legal experts for her response to federal prosecutors urging her not to be "manipulated" by Trump into delaying the federal trial, which is set to begin in May 2024. The frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges in connection to the classified documents case and has repeatedly called the trial a political witch hunt.
Legal experts have told Newsweek that they doubt Cannon will be removed or recuse herself from the trial this far into the proceedings.
You're viewing a single thread.
At this point she could cry out "Hail our Fuhrer, Trump!" and do a Nazi salute, and it still wouldn't be enough to remove her. Oversight is fucked in the judiciary.
Actually, she answers to the 11th Circuit, and she's already been reprimanded by them twice. If Jack Smith brings a viable example of bias before them one more time, it's third strike, and she's out.
The problem is, many of her actions are completely within the scope of her duties, and she's basically doing "death by 1000 cuts." Hopefully Smith can make a cogent case for her removal soon.
ETA: at least one (maybe both) of those reprimands gave her the benefit of the doubt for being so new at adjudication. I don't imagine the 11th Circuit will be so generous again.
Thank you, I was under the impression that she was helping baby hands and there were no consequences for what she was doing. That's good to know, I'll look up the specifics later, unless you have an article in mind you could link me to.
I listen to the Legal AF podcast (irritating side comments, great and pretty accurate legal analysis, approachable even for an ignorant boomer) to stay abreast of the goings on. I haven't listened in the last few days, because I simply need a break, but I would guess they've already covered these new developments.
Legal AF's clickbait episode titles kill me, but the information is top notch.
Cleanup on Aisle 45 and Jack are both excellent sources of accurate information as well.
Daily Beans is also worth listening to.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
If Jack Smith brings a viable example of bias before them one more time, it’s third strike, and she’s out.
This is the first time I've heard of this.
IANAL. I heard it from lawyers on the Legal AF podcast. Take that for what you will.
Unrelated to the topic, but I really think we should change the acronym to just "NAL". The "IA" is completely unnecessary and I really just can't see anything other than "I anal".
I always expect it's I❤️ANAL and the heart didn't render.
It can be two things
I was thinking "INAL" ("I'm not a lawyer"), but I like "NAL" even better.
I'm skeptical of this but would love to be surprised.
What are the chances that she randomly draws Trump's cases twice. Of all people? It's shady as fuck.
And this right here is why it matters which president we vote for. Because they decide if we get judges like Aileen Cannon.
Would this cause a mistrial? I have no idea.
No clue. My guess is since they haven't even gotten to the official trial (set for March), she'd be swapped out for one of her counterparts, or the 11th Circuit would hear the case instead.
ETA: at least one (maybe both) of those reprimands gave her the benefit of the doubt for being so new at adjudication. I don’t imagine the 11th Circuit will be so generous again.
I doubt the 11th Circuit will do anything except wring their hands.
I heard that part from practicing lawyers with decades of experience, so unless you're a lawyer, I'll go with their assessment.
I mean, not that I blame you for going with their word over mine, but let's come back a few months from now and see how things shake out. I'd love to be wrong.
Believe me, I understand the cynicism. Listening to them is the only thing that has given me hope in these proceedings.
I thought one decision on a previous case was overruled for the judge but what were the other decisions she's been reprimanded for? Not trying to sound antagonist just I only heard of a single instance a higher court impacting her and was a previous case, the only thing that comes up for her with reprimand was when she reprimanded Jack Smith, but it was recent so that's probably why. Mean I do hope she was, if anyone was more pronounced for carrying water for Trump they'd have pole indents in their shoulders from the work.
The only 11th Circuit adverse ruling I've found for this case is from her gaffe in Sept. 2022. It's possible there's been another smaller one that media outlets just ignored, but I don't know.
The other definite instance was from a different case in June 2023, and the 11th circuit ruled that what she did was a grave "structural error," which I gather is significantly bad.
So they might be different cases, but going before them again and having your (at best) inexperience on display again is not a good look for a judge handling a case so novel and important to the entire country.
Actually, oversight is fucked everywhere (unless you’re poor)