Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh > #2882476

tRUMPENWHORE Corrupt Rightist Slut Judge Aileen Cannon Will Be Removed From Trump Mar-a-Lago Case

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

Show all headers | View raw

How to Force Judge Aileen Cannon Off the Trump Case

Soon after the news broke that Donald Trump will become the first former 
president to face federal criminal charges—37 counts that include willful 
retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act, 
conspiracy to obstruct justice, concealing documents, and false 
statements—it was also revealed that Judge Aileen Cannon is scheduled to 
oversee the case. In our view as experts with more than a century of 
collective experience in judicial and other ethics questions, that cannot 
stand. She must recuse herself from the case or, if she refuses, be 
reassigned by the appropriate judicial oversight authorities.

Her name may be familiar to many. Judge Cannon heard Trump’s challenge to 
the government’s classified-documents investigation, appointed a special 
master to review the documents, and temporarily barred the Justice 
Department from using those records in its investigation. That much-
maligned decision was later reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit consisting of three conservative 
judges: two Trump appointees and the G. W. Bush appointed Chief Judge 
William Pryor. They wrote that her decision violated “clear” law and that 
her approach “would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the 
federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations” and “violate 
bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.”
Advertisement

Now that the same investigation has resulted in an indictment against 
Trump, Judge Cannon’s prior, fundamentally erroneous approach casts a 
shadow over the proceedings. Because her earlier handling of this case 
went well outside the judicial norm and was roundly criticized by the 
Court of Appeals, reasonable observers of this case could question her 
impartiality. Federal law has a way to deal with this challenge: under 28 
U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge “shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any 
proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned.” Judge Cannon’s situation clearly fits that test, and she is 
obligated to recuse herself in Trump’s case.

Recusal is necessary here to avoid serious concerns about Judge Cannon’s 
impartiality in the public eye. The judicial recusal rule is about 
preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system; it does not 
require a showing of actual bias. Rather, as the Supreme Court has 
explained, it simply asks whether “an objective observer” in the public 
“would have questioned [the judge’s] impartiality.” That is clearly the 
case with Judge Cannon. It is irrelevant whether a judge subjectively 
believes herself to be impartial. Because the statute aims at ensuring 
both justice and “the appearance of justice,” a federal judge must recuse 
if facts connected to the judge’s actions in the case would cause an 
objective observer to doubt the fairness of the proceedings.

Several features of this case make it clear that members of the public 
will harbor serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings and 
Judge Cannon’s impartiality, well beyond the objective observer standard.

First, it is common knowledge that Judge Cannon already took the deeply 
erroneous step of ordering federal prosecutors to refrain from using the 
materials seized from Mar-a-Lago in their investigation, when she 
appointed a special master to review whether these materials were subject 
to executive or attorney-client privilege. The charges here are the 
direct result of the investigation her order temporarily halted.
 

Second, Judge Cannon’s other statements and actions in the prior 
proceedings made clear her view that Trump is entitled to differential 
treatment than any other criminal defendant. She wrote that “[a]s a 
function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United 
States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of 
its own.” She reiterated this position in denying the government’s motion 
for a partial stay of her order pending appeal, stating that her 
consideration “is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by 
[Trump].” After the 11th Circuit rejected her position and granted a 
partial stay to allow the government to use classified materials and 
remove them from the special master’s review, she still ruled for Trump 
on procedural issues over the views of the special master she appointed. 
As the ultra-conservative panel of the 11th Circuit forcefully explained 
when finally dismissing Trump’s civil action in its entirety, it was 
Judge Cannon’s attempt to “carve out an unprecedented exception in our 
law for former presidents” that was in a league of its own.

Third, federal courts have explained in related contexts that prior 
reversals of a judge’s decisions in a case can support the conclusions 
that the judge “would have difficulty putting [her] previous views and 
findings aside,” and that another judge taking the case would be 
“appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice.” Here, Judge Cannon 
has issued a repeated series of decisions that were harshly criticized by 
the appellate authorities as far outside the law. That is a pattern that 
leads to the ineluctable appearance of bias.

Notably, the prior erroneous rulings had to do with the treatment of 
classified documents, and she had to be schooled by the DOJ and then 11th 
Circuit on her cavalier attitude. These decisions are directly related to 
the current charges. And she will have to deal with those issues 
constantly, including under the Classified Information Procedures Act 
(CIPA), the complex statute governing how a court deals with the 
intricacies of a criminal prosecution involving classified information. 
Add all this on top of the fact that she is the only judge in her 
division of Fort Pierce and that, for security reasons, the U.S. Marshal 
with likely insist the case be tried in Miami where the arraignment will 
occur, there are also substantial logistical reasons for her to step 
aside. That provides Judge Cannon with an elegant exit opportunity, 
should she choose to take it, without having to even address the 
significant conflict issues.
Advertisement

To be clear, our concern is not that Judge Cannon is a Trump appointee. 
The conflict of interest is that she has already issued unusual and 
profoundly wrong decisions favoring the defendant in this case that have 
been severely criticized and overturned, again by conservative or Trump-
appointed judges.

Yet another dimension of recusal that judges sometimes consider is 
whether it would have practical downsides. But there are no such costs 
here to another judge overseeing Trump’s case. The proceeding is still in 
a nascent stage, and the bulk of pretrial motions, discovery, and 
hearings—which will likely be extensive—have yet to occur.

But what if Judge Cannon does not recuse herself? One possibility that 
should be explored is for the chief judge of the district court, Chief 
Judge Cecilia Altonaga, to reassign the case pursuant to the court’s 
power under federal law to “assign [ ] cases so far as [local] rules and 
orders do not otherwise prescribe.” Nothing in the Southern District of 
Florida’s local rules or Internal Operating Procedures is to the 
contrary. Those local procedures provide for Judge Cannon and her 
colleagues to agree to transfer the case to another judge. The chief 
judge should have a vigorous discussion with her under that provision. If 
Judge Cannon demurs, though, the rules are silent about what happens next 
and so the federal statute comes into play for the chief judge to 
reassign the case. She too can point to logistical concerns, including 
the security ones, in reassigning it to a judge in Miami— saving face for 
Judge Cannon.

We recognize that such intervention by the chief judge is not an everyday 
occurrence. If it doesn’t happen, though, there are other options. The 
more likely possibility here if the Southern District of Florida chooses 
not to deal with this issue is that the 11th Circuit should be called 
upon to reassign the case to a different judge at the earliest 
opportunity. As the case is lodged at the trial court level and is not 
before the circuit at the moment, that reassignment would likely come 
only as part of a reversal on appeal of one of Judge Cannon’s decisions.
Advertisement

Under binding 11th Circuit precedents a case should be reassigned to a 
different judge if, among other reasons, the original judge would have 
“difficulty” setting aside her previous views and findings and 
reassignment would not result in a waste of judicial resources. Those 
factors clearly weigh in favor of reassignment here, due to the 
difficulties that Judge Cannon will likely face in diverging from her 
previous, unorthodox, and wrongful rulings benefitting Trump.

This is the path that appears most likely to be pursued if Judge Cannon 
is to be removed because her approach thus far suggests that it unlikely 
that the judge will recuse herself. DOJ might choose to make the case in 
a recusal motion that it would be better for her and everyone concerned 
if she stepped aside. In just about any other high-profile criminal case, 
if a trial judge were to err in the direction of excessive leniency 
favoring a criminal defendant in a preliminary hearing and were reversed 
on appeal, law and order conservatives would be the first to say that 
trial judge had a conflict and should be removed. That judge’s reputation 
would be on trial. Impartiality would be too dubious. The same is true 
here.

But the Department may, as they often do, take the more conservative 
approach to recusal. If so, they may instead wait for the judge to 
overstep once more and at that point ask her, and if she refuses, the 
11th Circuit to act. They could do so as part of the appeal of that 
particular issue if it is available pretrial, as are all CIPA rulings on 
classified document handling (the general area where she stumbled 
before). Or, if a Cannon ruling is sufficiently outrageous on an issue 
that is not normally appealable before trial, they could seek mandamus 
(available in unusual situations when a district judge is failing to 
perform their duty).
Advertisement

If seeking reassignment by the 11th Circuit is the outcome here, that 
will require a bit of patience by all of us. Still, if the special master 
case is any indication, we should not have a long wait for an erroneous 
decision by Judge Cannon (although we would be pleased to be proven 
wrong).

Ultimately, Judge Cannon should do the ethical thing and recuse herself. 
If she chooses not to, DOJ should be watchful for the first opportunity 
to seek reassignment by the 11th Circuit. The reputation of the 11th 
circuit and the ability of their judges, both trial and appellate, to 
handle sensitive cases with an absence of bias are at stake here. So is 
the public’s confidence in the outcome of one of the most important 
criminal trials in the history of our republic. Not to mention the 
American people’s faith in the entire criminal justice system. 
Ultimately, a failure to recuse or reassign could well do great damage to 
the core American principle that no one—not even a former president—is 
above the law.

Back to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

tRUMPENWHORE Corrupt Rightist Slut Judge Aileen Cannon Will Be Removed From Trump Mar-a-Lago Case John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-16 23:09 +0000
  Re: tRUMPENWHORE Corrupt Rightist Slut Judge Aileen Cannon Will Be Removed From Trump Mar-a-Lago Case % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 16:11 -0700

csiph-web