Former Obama and Bush administration officials are calling for the recusal of the judge who has been tapped to oversee the charges against former President Donald Trump stemming from his handling of classified documents.
Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida was appointed by Mr. Trump and had previously sided with the former president in his bid to appoint a special master to review the records he housed at Mar-a-Lago.
Judge Cannon’s ruling in which she backed Mr. Trump’s request that a special master review the documents in dispute was later overturned on appeal by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the 11th Circuit dismissed ethics complaints accusing her of political bias in that decision.
Now, Judge Cannon is set to oversee the Biden administration’s case that accuses Mr. Trump of 37 counts, ranging from violations of the Espionage Act to obstruction of justice and lying to federal officials.
Norman Eisen, White House ethics czar to former President Barack Obama, and Richard Painter, associate counsel to former President George W. Bush, wrote in Slate on Monday that the judge’s previous rulings “demand her recusal.”
SEE ALSO: Judge greenlights Trump’s dispute against niece Mary Trump over confidentiality breach
They don’t take issue with her being appointed by Mr. Trump, but rather point to her record.
“She must recuse herself from the case or, if she refuses, be reassigned by the appropriate judicial oversight authorities,” they said.
The article cites 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal law that says a judge must disqualify oneself from a case where impartiality can be questioned.
“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,” the men wrote, joined by Fred Wertheimer, founder of the nonprofit group Democracy 21.
Additionally, progressive legal scholar and Harvard University professor Laurence Tribe tweeted over the weekend that the public must have proper oversight of the case by having it televised.
“If the legal system is too weak or corrupt to replace Judge Cannon with a less seemingly biased judge, at least the public’s right to SEE justice done must be secured by live TV coverage of the trial. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980) demands it,” he said.
The 1980 case involved reporters challenging a judge’s closure of a murder trial from the press. The court ruled there’s a First Amendment interest for the public to attend criminal trials.
Conservatives, though, are defending Judge Cannon.
Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, said on Fox News that she’s a “very fair judge.”
“The Democrats will attack her, they’ll say that she’s a Trump appointee. She got substantial Democrat support during her confirmation. So that blows their argument right out of the water,” he said in an appearance Friday on “Jesse Watters Primetime.”
Judge Cannon was confirmed to the Southern District of Florida in November 2020 by a vote of 56-21. Eleven Democrats voted for her confirmation.
Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled former White House ethics czar Norman Eisen’s first name.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.