Not only by the defendant–also an outspoken supporter of the defendant.
I wonder what the level of support is that a judge could have shown to a defendant without being required to recuse herself from a case where he is in the dock?
For example, a lawyer works as the President’s campaign manager, the president appoints this lawyer to the court, and comes up as a defendant in a subsequent lawsuit–that’s an automatic recusal, right?
Right?
Okay, how about if the judge has simply made public speeches in support of that president? Or headed a superPAC? Or defended the POTUS before becoming a judge?
@Stratocaster is also glossing over that there are plenty of Bush nominated judges in the Southern District of Florida (both W. and H.W.). There’s even a Nixon appointee on senior status (Judge James Lawrence King).
I’m saying in terms of bias, there’s not much daylight, if any, between that and a judge appointed by the defendant’s chief political adversary. Perhaps a bit more daylight for a judge appointed by the defendant’s “enemy” party, even if the appointing president was not the current rival. But still the same basis for assuming bias. Were this an accepted argument, nobody is without bias.
Much stronger to argue bias based on the prior rulings. Absent those rulings, she’s just another judge we presume unbiased, just like the Circuit judges appointed by Trump who smacked her down.
So, no daylight between a judge appointed by the defendant and one appointed by George W. Bush? That’s absurd.
Look, I’m not saying appointed by Trump alone is enough to warrant recusal, but it’s not nothing, and along with everything else it’s pretty clear she should recuse.
Apart from that, this is one of the most important federal criminal trials we may ever see in our lifetimes. I think it would be to the benefit of the American people if it was presided over by by an experienced judge with an impeccable track record of fairness regardless of who appointed the judge.
I said more daylight, but still a basis for assuming bias based on allegiance to a party. But it’s clear we disagree. Both opinions are subjective (as opinions often are ), so you can have the last word if you’d like. It’s not a major point for me.
On its own, I’m not at all worried about Trump appearing before a judge he appointed. They rule against him all the time. I’m sure that frustrates the hell out of him, especially as he values “loyalty” so much.
(However, I do agree with @Lance_Turbo about concerns with this particular judge, based solely on what happened in the last trial.)
The experience part is what concerns me. Even if she was so progressive Bernie Sanders was her compromise candidate, this is a complicated case in uncharted legal waters. It needs an older more experienced judge to preside over it.
I’d swear I saw either yesterday or the day before that Judge Cannon has asked a (higher-ranking?) judge to oversee/back her up during the trial. Something to that effect. I thought it was on these here boards but can’t find it. Is this something I imagined?
The only thing I remember is a note that the other judges in her district might want to act as oversight in this case because it could impact the reputation of all of them, given how important it is. I don’t remember any actual announcement of it, it was just speculation.
I did some searching and there hasn’t been any news since she ordered a deadline for getting security clearances.
A proposed personnel roster circulating within Donald Trump’s campaign and transition operation lists Aileen Cannon, the federal judge who threw out Trump’s classified documents case, as a possible candidate for attorney general, multiple sources familiar with the matter have told ABC News.
), so you can have the last word if you’d like. It’s not a major point for me.