A federal judge recently criticized attempts to remove the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s case involving classified documents. The Florida-based Judge Aileen Cannon received over 1,000 complaints in a single week last month, with critics accusing her of intentionally delaying Trump’s criminal case until after the election. However, Chief Judge William Pryor dismissed the effort, stating that the complaints lacked sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct had occurred.
Despite facing criticism for her management of the case, Judge Cannon continues to face allegations of delaying the proceedings and refusing to set a trial date. Critics have also pointed out that she was appointed by Trump, with former left-leaning federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner accusing her on his podcast “Justice Matters” of bringing the case to a standstill.
In response to these allegations, Judge Pryor wrote in an order that many complaints against Cannon request she be removed from the classified-documents case and replaced with a different judge. However, he emphasized that the judicial-complaint process is not the appropriate way to seek review of her orders, as they are still subject to appellate review.
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed another request last week with Judge Cannon, asking for a gag order on Trump after being rejected just days prior and receiving a rebuke from the court. Smith’s request aims to prevent Trump from commenting on the law enforcement officers who searched his Mar-a-Lago home, where they found classified documents. In Florida, Trump faces 40 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation.
Despite Smith’s insistence on making the request following a claim made by Trump last week about the FBI agents who searched his home in August 2022, Judge Cannon rejected the motion because prosecutors had not properly conferred with the defense. The judge criticized the prosecutors for their lack of professionalism and warned that future instances of such conduct would warrant sanctions.
Trump’s legal team responded by saying the request was “a blatant violation of the First Amendment rights of President Trump and the American People, which would in effect allow President Trump’s political opponent to regulate his campaign communications to voters across the country.
