PHOENIX (AP) — In a significant development in Arizona’s high-profile fake electors case, a judge has stepped down from overseeing the proceedings after a contentious email was uncovered. This email, disclosed on Tuesday, reveals Judge Bruce Cohen‘s call for his fellow judges to publicly defend Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris against derogatory remarks made during her presidential campaign.
In the controversial email dated August 29, Cohen expressed regret for not speaking out when Harris was disparagingly labeled a “DEI hire.” He emphasized the responsibility of white men to advocate against the discrimination faced by women, drawing a sobering parallel to the moral imperative of speaking up during the Holocaust. Although he highlighted these issues, Cohen refrained from naming the individuals who made the disparaging comments about Harris.
He passionately urged his colleagues, stating, “We cannot allow our colleagues who identify as being a ‘person of color’ to stand alone when there are those who may claim that their ascension was an ‘equity hire’ rather than based solely upon exceptionalism.” This message highlights the need for solidarity and support within the judiciary when addressing issues of race and equity.
Cohen later acknowledged his misstep in judgment and expressed remorse in a follow-up email, indicating that his commitment to the cause had clouded his professional objectivity. He recognized that utilizing a judicial email forum to convey unsolicited personal opinions was inappropriate and apologized to anyone impacted by his remarks.
Lawyers representing Republican state Sen. Jake Hoffman, who is facing serious legal troubles with nine felony charges in this elaborate case, sought Cohen’s removal from the bench. They argued that his evident personal political bias compromised his ability to render impartial judgment, which ultimately led to their client’s loss of faith in the judge’s ability to preside fairly.
Hoffman stands as one of 11 Republican figures who submitted a fraudulent document to Congress, falsely asserting that then-President Donald Trump was the legitimate winner in Arizona during the contentious 2020 election. This group includes notable individuals such as the former state party chair, a 2022 U.S. Senate candidate, and two current state lawmakers, alongside two former Trump aides and five attorneys linked to Trump, including the prominent Rudy Giuliani. All fifteen defendants face serious charges, ranging from forgery and fraud to conspiracy.
Following Cohen’s decision to recuse himself, Arizona attorney Mark L. Williams, who represents Giuliani, opined that given the judge’s past statements, his withdrawal from the case was wholly appropriate. He further asserted that the foundation of the case had weakened significantly and urged the Arizona Attorney General to consider winding down the prosecution entirely.
A spokesperson for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, tasked with handling these charges, opted not to comment on the judge’s recent recusal, underscoring the sensitive nature of the situation.
In review of his original email, Cohen defended it as a stand for decency, insisting it did not stem from any personal bias, while also acknowledging that perceptions regarding his message might differ from his intent.
Cohen, who has served on the bench since his appointment by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano in 2005, is slated to retire this January, marking the end of his judicial career amidst a notable controversy.
Notably, many defendants had pressed Cohen to dismiss the charges against them, invoking an Arizona law designed to protect individuals from being silenced through baseless legal actions. This law, historically applicable in civil matters, was revised in 2022 by a Republican-led legislature to afford similar protections to those facing criminal charges.
Despite Cohen’s recusal prior to addressing motions to dismiss the contentious case, the legal battles are far from over, as they will now be reassigned to a different judge for continued proceedings.
The defendants have asserted that the charges against them represent an attempt by Mayes to stifle their constitutionally protected expressions concerning the 2020 election and its aftermath. They contend that Mayes had campaigned explicitly on investigating the alleged fake elector scheme and exhibits a clear bias against Trump and his supporters.
However, prosecutors counter the defendants’ claims, stating that they lack the requisite evidence to substantiate allegations of retaliation. Instead, they argue that the defendants have crossed a critical line from free speech into deliberate fraudulent activity. Furthermore, it has been reported that the grand jury which issued the indictment contemplated charging Trump himself, though prosecutors advised against such action.
In an evolving legal landscape, two of the defendants have already resolved their cases. Former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, closely allied with Giuliani, reached a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, resulting in the dismissal of her charges. Additionally, Republican activist Loraine Pellegrino marked a significant development as the first individual convicted in this legal saga, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and receiving a probation sentence.
The remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty to the serious charges leveled against them. It’s noteworthy that while Trump himself faced no charges in Arizona, he is referred to in the indictment as an unindicted coconspirator, adding a further layer of complexity to the ongoing proceedings.
___
**Interview with Legal Expert, Dr. Sarah Jennings, on the Recent Developments in Arizona’s Fake Electors Case**
**Interviewer**: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Jennings. To start, what is your take on Judge Bruce Cohen’s decision to step down from overseeing the fake electors case following the revelation of his controversial email?
**Dr. Jennings**: Thank you for having me. Judge Cohen’s resignation is significant on multiple fronts. It raises critical questions about judicial impartiality and the appropriate boundaries of judicial conduct. His email, which addressed derogatory comments made against Vice President Kamala Harris, has certainly drawn attention to broader issues of race and equity within the judiciary. However, his decision to express personal opinions in a judicial forum may have compromised his ability to serve impartially in this politically charged case.
**Interviewer**: Indeed. Cohen expressed regret for potentially clouding his professional objectivity with his personal beliefs. How do you think this might impact public trust in the judicial process?
**Dr. Jennings**: Such incidents can erode public confidence in the judicial system, especially in cases as high-profile as this one. When judges insert their personal views into the judicial arena, it can lead to doubts about their ability to remain impartial. This situation is further complicated by the political dimensions of the case, given the involvement of prominent figures aligned with both political parties.
**Interviewer**: You mentioned the political dimensions of the case. How might this influence the prosecution going forward, especially with the judge’s recusal?
**Dr. Jennings**: The recusal of Cohen opens the door for a new judge who may have a fresh perspective on the case, which could either strengthen or weaken the prosecution’s position. The removal has already prompted comments from defense attorneys, like Mark L. Williams, suggesting that the foundation of the case is weakening. It’s critical for the Arizona Attorney General’s office to ensure the new judge can approach the case free from any biases that might arise from previous proceedings.
**Interviewer**: In light of the ongoing challenges to the prosecution, do you think this case may ultimately be dismissed?
**Dr. Jennings**: It’s hard to say definitively. While the defense has pushed for dismissal, it largely depends on how the prosecution presents their case moving forward and whether they can maintain sufficient evidence against the defendants. The current political climate and the recent changes in Arizona law regarding protections for defendants add layers of complexity that could influence the outcome.
**Interviewer**: with Cohen set to retire in January, how might his departure affect future similar cases in Arizona?
**Dr. Jennings**: Judge Cohen’s retirement could usher in a new era in Arizona’s judiciary. His experience and the subsequent discussion generated by his email might prompt new conversations about the roles of judges in politically charged cases. Future judges may need to navigate these issues with more caution, and hopefully, it will inspire a stronger commitment to uphold the principles of impartiality and respect for all individuals in the courtroom.
**Interviewer**: Thank you, Dr. Jennings, for your insights on this complex and evolving situation.
**Dr. Jennings**: Thank you for having me. It will certainly be interesting to see how this develops further.
