Here's the argument as to why Cannon's potential removal is not ripe at this time:
1. She won't recuse herself if DOJ moves for it, & the district chief judge won't either. It would only come from the 11th Circuit via reassignment on remand after a successful DOJ appeal.
2. Obviously DOJ hasn't appealed anything to date. Frankly, there's been nothing to appeal. DOJ is not going to appeal pre-trial & trial scheduling issues, as a court of appeals is EXTREMELY unlikely to second guess how a judge runs their docket. Being bad on scheduling, and...
...being generally hostile to DOJ during hearings is not grounds for appeal. DOJ need a final appealable order (not going to cover the complex appellate issues here), and there's really be nothing qualifying as such to date that's worth appealing.
3. That said, there are looming issues that could set up appealable orders: disclosing witness identities, granting any of the motions to dismiss, & perhaps some extreme version of granting the motions to compel (it'd have to be bad though; 11th Cir. will defer on discovery).
And then we'll have potential CIPA appeals if we ever get to Section 6(c) litigation (concerning what's disclosed at trial).
4. Even if DOJ appeals something, that doesn't mean they'll ask for her removal on remand. It would depend on how egregious her ruling was.
And there's some suggestion in case law that the 11th Circuit would want to see MULTIPLE instances where she was overturned prior to removing her. See the standard below. It's not clear whether they'd count the search warrant litigation.
As a result, calls for her removal are premature. I get the sentiment, & obviously she's displayed some bias, but DOJ can't appeal based on vibes. They need final - & likely multiple - adverse rulings that can be appealed where she is plaining wrong, & they don't have that yet.
If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd like to see an outline of the arguments you'd make in a brief to the 11th Circuit. That brief don't write.
Adding based on some of the comments: DOJ will absolutely point to the prior 11th Cir. reversals if they ask for her removal. I'm just saying it's not clear under the case law if those rulings + whatever she does on her first appeal will be enough, & this will make DOJ cautious.
Whether DOJ seeks her removal on an appeal will also depend a lot on what the ruling is about & its impact on the case. E.g., Cannon ordering the witness identities to be disclosed would be pretty egregious, but it's not like it would mean that Trump will win the case.
Whereas if she dismissed the case based on the PRA, DOJ would have a stronger case for bias as this ruling would result in dismissal. That's all to say, DOJ's decision will be a complicated risk-reward calculus, & and it's much harder decision than people here think.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Literally selling access -- not to raise money for his struggling campaign -- but to line his pockets. $7425 per ticket.
And if I understand correctly, they are charging more for dinner tickets if you pay with crypto, which isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the industry!
And if you buy $495 worth of digital cards, they'll throw in a set of the gold sneakers for free (which were originally sold for $399)!
This doesn't at all suggest that they have thousands of them in excess inventory, or that the people who bought them already got ripped off.
With Jack Smith not seeking Cannon's removal at this time, I think we can say that the MAL case is unlikely to go to trial until 2026 at the earliest, if Trump loses the election.
Cannon will be reversed by the 11th Circuit in the pending appeal. Assuming no SCOTUS review...
...she'll get the case back in late 2024/early 2025. But then immunity will be considered next, and I believe Cannon will rule in Trump's favor there too. See thread. Even then, it will be hard for Smith to seek her removal in light of the SCOTUS ruling.
That ruling will go the 11th Circuit too, and even if they reverse, it's likely that SCOTUS will take up this appeal. Between delays by Cannon (who will take her time ruling) and the 11th Circuit, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS will hear the case by April 2025, which means...
The MAL case was never going to a jury with Cannon, so other than the political gift of the timing, today's development merely accelerates the process of DOJ figuring out next steps. However, there are no "good" options for Smith. The question is which is the least worst.
I'd start from the premise that Smith appealing and NOT asking for her removal may be the worst option. She's proven that she'll do everything she can to tank the case for Trump. But asking for her removal is a pretty dramatic step, one that DOJ will not take lightly.
For a refresher on 11th Circuit precedent on removal, please see below from @alegalnerd. This would be the second time she's taken an appealable, fairly lawless step, so maybe it's enough? But she'll just say "hey, a Supreme Court justice agrees w me!"
Just as you shouldn't spread false information, please avoid rushing to judgment until all the facts come out.
For example, lots of people are criticizing the two snipers in the video for not firing earlier. As this shows, it's POSSIBLE that their view was obstructed by a tree.
There was absolutely an F-up here, don't get me wrong. But trying to ascribe individual blame without all the facts is inappropriate. These are public servants putting their lives on the line for the protectee. Let's just let the facts come out before throwing them under the bus.
I would again emphasize to those who can't read: there CLEARLY was an F-up here to leave that roof unsecured. No question.
I'm talking about the criticism of those two snipers for not shooting earlier. We simply don't know what they could see or what they were being told.
As others have noted, the SC's immunity decision may also imperil the classified documents prosecution against Trump. Emboldened by the ruling, he will continue to argue that his designation of certain records as “personal” under the PRA was an official act subject to immunity.
It would be a stretch to say this act relates to a core function, but who knows with Cannon? Instead it likely falls into the middle category of non-core official acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution. Of course, Cannon has shown favor toward the PRA argument…
…so my best guess is that she will find that Trump’s designation should remain immune. Smith will have several counters. First, there’s no evidence that Trump “designated” anything under the PRA, or that he even believed they were "personal." He just took the docs with him.