Judge Rejects Scheme to Remove Trump-Appointed Judge in Classified Case

(DailyVantage.com) – A federal judge has rejected the motion to remove Judge Aileen Cannon as the presiding magistrate responsible for former president Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

William Pryor, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, issued an order rejecting several attempts to have Cannon removed from the case.

In his decision, Judge Pryor said that the complaints against Cannon, a Trump appointee, were meritless, and was lacking in “sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred.”

Critics of Cannon have grown livid over the judge’s supposed slowness in addressing the motions and other issues that have propped up in relation to Trump’s classified documents case. Many have also pointed out that she has not even set a new trial date yet, after canceling a trial that would have begun in May, as she chided members of the prosecution for supposedly filing a surprise last-minute motion and not giving Trump’s legal team enough time to review the new developments and adjust their strategy.

Within just the span of a week last month, more than 1,000 complaints have been filed against Judge Cannon, many accusing her of delaying the trial proceedings in favor of Trump. The former president has repeatedly sought delays in all of the indictments and lawsuits he is involved in, reasoning that the legal proceedings have unreasonably kept him from the campaign trail.

There are also a number of petitions making the rounds on the internet that seek to have Cannon removed as presiding judge in Trump’s classified documents case.

“Judge Cannon is NOT an honest broker of the law,” former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner said in his “Justice Matters” podcast. Kirschner’s podcast also included links to a tutorial on how to file a complaint against Cannon.

Pryor’s order indicated that he was aware of the allegations that Cannon was allegedly intentionally delaying the trial, but wrote that the claims were “speculative and unsupported by any evidence.”