DOJ's new appeal could mean it will be 'Goodnight, Aileen' for Trump-appointed judge: former deputy AG
Creative Commons

Reacting to a Department of Justice appeal to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday that seeks to overturn yet another ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman claimed a win for the DOJ would be a huge blow to the Donald Trump-appointed jurist.

Pushing back at Cannon's decision to allow Trump's lawyers to ignore demands and deadlines set down by special master Raymond Dearie, the DOJ asked for an expedited ruling.

According to Politico, the DOJ insisted, "The government is … unable to examine records that were commingled with materials bearing classification markings, including records that may shed light on, for example, how the materials bearing classification markings were transferred to Plaintiff’s residence, how they were stored, and who may have accessed them,” in a 15-page filing.

Politico's Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney added, "The filing also hints at prosecutors’ irritation with Cannon, a Trump appointee confirmed days after his defeat in the 2020 election. The Justice Department noted that she has repeatedly overruled decisions made by the special master she appointed at Trump’s suggestion, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Dearie."

RELATED: Trump lawyer privately trashing his colleagues for making the former president's legal woes worse: report

According to Litman, after the 11th Circuit already rebuked Cannon, an additional notation in the latest filing could be used to undercut her even further.

"DOJ appeals Cannon's order on the merits, and proposes expedited schedule. Also adds new argument - that needs the rest of the 11,000+ docs to ascertain what happened to the classified ones. If they win, it's Goodnight, Aileen...," he tweeted.

Litman's suggestion comes at the same time as former prosecutor Robert Katzberg suggested that the DOJ could petition the 11th Circuit to take the Trump case away from her "... arguing that her opinions have demonstrated a level of bias that cannot be tolerated—and further, that her continued oversight of the matter is a threat to national security."