'Hard to imagine a worse situation': Legal expert says DOJ must demand Aileen Cannon's recusal now

According to former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, there is no reason for the Department of Justice to wait for Judge Aileen Cannon to start presiding over the trial of Donald Trump before asking for her to be removed from the case.

In a series of Tweets, Vance explained that there is already bad blood between the Florida judge and the DOJ when it comes to anything involving the former president, who is now facing a historic 37-count indictment.

Last year, Cannon's interference with the DOJ as it attempted to review classified government documents the FBI had retrieved from Mar-a-Lago was dismantled by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which issued a sharply worded rebuke.

As Vance sees it, worries that Cannon will see it as an "affront" if special counsel Jack Smith asks that she step aside should not even be a consideration, given her past dealings with the DOJ.

On Twitter, the legal expert wrote, "I'm confused by the argument that the gov't shouldn't move for Judge Cannon's recusal because she might be affronted. Given the history in the prior litigation, I'm sure she already is. It's hard to imagine a worse situation with a trial judge."

"Prosecutors have 2 moves here: file a motion to recuse now. If she denies it, she's required to write a statement saying why. That could be helpful. They can also wait until she enters an appealable order & ask the 11th Cir. to reassign the case on remand," she continued. "The issue is whether the public can have confidence in this judge's conduct of such an important trial. The answer is no based on how she handled the prior case. And if she rules against Trump, he'll claim she's trying to fix her reputation. It's a lose-lose if she stays on."

She concluded, "If Cannon recuses, this case could go to another Trump appointee. That's not what this is about. It's about whether, as the 11th Circuit said, even in the absence of bias 'the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside.'"