A recent report from Newsweek on November 5, 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s decision not to request Judge Aileen Cannon’s recusal in the Donald Trump classified documents case may come back to haunt him, according to legal expert Joyce Vance.
Vance, a former federal prosecutor, suggests that Judge Cannon’s handling of the case seems to be fueled by an unexplained personal grudge against the special counsel’s office.
Joyce Vance, who previously served as the United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, shared her views on her blog, Civil Discourse, on the Substack writing platform.
More Read
She argues that Smith missed an opportunity to remove Cannon from the case right from the start.
Jack Smith, a Department of Justice special counsel, is currently responsible for prosecuting Trump in both the classified documents case and the indictment related to Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election.
During Trump’s presidency, he appointed Cannon as a federal judge in South Florida. Now, Trump faces indictment in this jurisdiction for allegedly holding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.
The relationship between Cannon and the special counsel’s office has been rocky, and Vance characterizes it as an “inexplicable grudge match.” She suggests that Cannon’s appointment by Trump might be influencing her decision-making in the case.
Vance expresses doubts about Cannon’s suitability as a federal judge, especially in a case involving the person who appointed her. Vance speculates that Cannon might be making these decisions to avoid displeasing individuals whose support she may need in the future.
Vance made these comments in response to Trump’s legal team’s request to postpone the Florida trial, which they believed was scheduled too close to Trump’s election interference trial in Washington D.C.
After making the Florida request, Trump’s legal team also asked the judge in the Washington D.C. district to delay that trial.
Smith’s decision not to seek Cannon’s recusal could significantly impact the case’s outcome.
If Cannon’s alleged bias in favor of Trump influences her rulings, it might hinder the prosecution’s efforts to secure a conviction.
Vance argues that Smith should have been prepared for this potential conflict of interest and acted promptly to seek Cannon’s recusal.
By not doing so, Smith may have unintentionally placed the prosecution at a disadvantage.
The classified documents case is just one of the legal challenges Trump is currently facing. He also faces an indictment in Washington D.C. for alleged interference in the 2020 election. Smith is the special counsel responsible for prosecuting both cases.
Smith’s decision not to request Cannon’s recusal is a high-stakes gamble. If Cannon’s rulings end up favoring Trump, Smith might ultimately regret his choice. However, if Smith can secure a conviction despite potential bias, it could boost his reputation as a skilled and determined prosecutor.
