Judge Rejects Effort to Remove Trump-Appointed Judge in Documents Case

(OurNationNews.com) -U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon will remain as the presiding judge over former president Donald Trump’s classified documents case after a federal appeals judge ruled that multiple motions seeking to have her removed and replaced lacked merit.

In his order, U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that several motions filed to have Judge Cannon removed as the presiding magistrate in Trump’s classified documents case did not have “sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred.” He also noted that the motions looked to be part of an “orchestrated” attempt to have Cannon – who happens to be a Trump appointee – removed from the case.

Last month, more than 1,000 complaints have been filed against Cannon over her supposed unnecessarily delaying of proceedings in Trump’s classified documents case. The former president was indicted over allegedly taking into his personal possession dozens of boxes of classified and sensitive government documents when he left the White House.

Cannon has been pushing proceedings further and further back, however, ostensibly due to multiple violations of the court’s rules. Only recently, she berated the prosecution team headed by Special Counsel Jack Smith for supposedly filing a last-minute motion seeking to modify the gag order issued against Trump to include statements on law enforcement officers. Cannon said that the prosecution failed to sufficiently consult with the defense team, prompting her to reject the motion “without prejudice”.

Cannon’s decisions have also ostensibly favor Trump, who has repeatedly sought a delay in the multiple criminal prosecutions he is facing, saying that it keeps him from campaigning properly.

Citing the delays, Progressive organizations and groups have also launched multiple petitions to have Cannon replaced.

In his order, Pryor also acknowledged the complaints against Cannon and claims that she was unnecessarily delaying proceedings, but said that the allegations against the latter were “speculative and unsupported by any evidence.”