Aileen Cannon refuses to recuse herself from the case of a man accused of trying to assassinate Trump

U.S. District Judge Aileen Kanon refused reject himself from the case of Ryan Routh, who is accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump last month. The judge appointed to federal court by the alleged victim in Routh’s case was overruled the suspect’s concerns about Trump’s praise for Cannon and the possibility that he could promote her to an even higher office if he is elected next week.

“I have no control over what private citizens, members of the media, or government officials or candidates choose to say about me or my judicial decisions,” Cannon wrote in an order published on Tuesday. “I have never spoken to or met former President Trump, except in connection with his required attendance at an official legal proceeding, through counsel,” added the judge who dismissed Trump’s secret documents case. in July.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is challenging Cannon’s resignation before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where outside groups were present are calling before the court appoint a new judge in addition to reinstating charges against the former president. And while the documents case is separate from Routh’s, Cannon’s conduct in Trump’s case was also at issue in Routh’s denial motion: who noticed “Some statements” by Cannon that were “favorable” to Trump.

That prompted the judge to broadly defend her Trump-friendly actions, writing that Routh’s motion “presents no facts or law that would justify a departure from the general rule of no challenge, let alone the ‘pervasive bias ‘ that are necessary to bring about the exception to the law. general rule.” (Both Routh and the Republican presidential candidate have pleaded not guilty in their respective cases.)

Now you could distinguish between the cases that lead Cannon to dismiss Routh’s case, but not Trump’s. It would go something like this: It’s one thing issuing deranged statements (in Trump’s case) but something else to then lead the prosecution of the man accused of murdering that unique defendant who not only appointed her to the federal court, but continues to appoint her Supreme Court judge can make or Attorney General (in Routh’s case).

But if Cannon had dismissed Routh’s case, would that have implied that she could not fairly hear Trump’s case if it were reinstated? We’ll never know.

And it is not that judges need any special reason to reject any implication that they cannot do their job. But if Cannon was also intent on keeping himself in the documents case by sticking with Routh, it may come at the cost of unnecessarily tarnishing any conviction that may emerge in the latter landmark case.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis of the week’s top legal stories, including Supreme Court updates and developments in Donald Trump’s lawsuits.