A new ruling from Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida that would allow for secret grand jury testimony to be made public is likely to lead the Justice Department to demand that she be removed from the classified documents case of former president Donald Trump, according to several legal experts.
According to Axios, Cannon was angered when she learned that an “out-of-district” grand jury was still investigating possible illegal actions related to the documents Trump kept in unsecured locations at his Mar-a-Lago club.
The judge overseeing former President Trump’s classified documents case on Monday rebuked federal prosecutors and struck two of their filings.
Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, also demanded an explanation of “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.”
That move by Cannon, several legal experts predicted, will likely lead to her removal from the case.
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance explained that “Judge Cannon responds to the govt’s request for a hearing on Nauta’s lawyer’s conflicts & discloses the existence of a grand jury investigation in another district while denying gov’t’s motion to seal. The govt can appeal. This may tee up the issue of her fitness on this case.”
MSNBC host and former prosecutor Katie Phang concurred with Vance.
“If the DOJ filed under seal certain documents, and Judge Cannon just disclosed the existence of an otherwise confidential grand jury proceeding, we might be at the motion for recusal stage for the DOJ…”
Former senior DOJ official Harry Litman noted, “I’m betting that Judge Cannon’s account of the out-of-district investigation is not the full story. But hard to see how she can justify not sealing her order referring to another Grand Jury. Could this be a possible vehicle for taking her up and seeking her recusal? Not clear yet.”
And Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller, said Cannon was proving her bias and/or her ignorance with her ruling.
“The obstruction crimes that were investigated are charges that could have been brought in FLA or in DC and thus could be investigated in either district. And there was conduct that is alleged to have occurred outside FLA.”
