New Judge Cannon order opens door for DOJ to ask for her Trump case removal: legal experts
A stunning new ruling on Monday by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon that would expose secret grand jury testimony is grounds for the Department of Justice to call for her removal from overseeing the 40-count indictment filed against Donald Trump.
That is the opinion of former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance after Cannon questioned "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding" and struck two sealed motions filed by prosecutors pursuing the former president over the stolen government documents he was hoarding at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
As part of her ruling, she is giving government lawyers until Aug. 22. to defend their request which raises questions about possible conflicts of interest by Trump aide Walt Nauta's lawyer, Stanley Woodward.
News of the ruling -- and its implications as far as testimony privacy matters -- led former U.S. Attorney Vance to suggest there is now cause to ask the supervising Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and strip her of the case.
RELATED: Legal expert shoots down Trump's dream of booting Judge Chutkan and moving his trial
"Judge Cannon responds to the govt's request for a hearing on Nauta's lawyer's conflicts & discloses the existence of a grand jury investigation in another district while denying gov't's motion to seal. The govt can appeal. This may tee up the issue of her fitness on this case," Vance tweeted.
She added, "Looking like a good week to ask the 11th Circuit to replace the judge."
MSNBC host and former prosecutor Katie Phang agreed, chiming in with: "If the DOJ filed under seal certain documents, and Judge Cannon just disclosed the existence of an otherwise confidential grand jury proceeding, we might be at the motion for recusal stage for the DOJ…"
Former senior DOJ official Harry Litman also questioned what Cannon is doing by writing, "I'm betting that Judge Cannon's account of the out-of-district investigation is not the full story. But hard to see how she can justify not sealing her order referring to another Grand Jury. Could this be a possible vehicle for taking her up and seeking her recusal? Not clear yet."
And Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller, argued that Cannon was either showing bias or ignorance with her latest ruling.
"The obstruction crimes that were investigated are charges that could have been brought in FLA or in DC and thus could be investigated in either district," he wrote. "And there was conduct that is alleged to have occurred outside FLA."
Reuters recently reported that Cannon bungled a previous case which led one law professor to remark, "She ignored the public trial right entirely. It's as though she didn't know it existed."
