WHCD shooter Cole Allen’s lawyers want the entire DC prosecutors’ office kicked off his case
The appearance of fairness.
Cole Allen, the man accused of trying to assassinate President Donald Trump at last month’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His lawyers are now pushing to boot the prosecutors’ office off the case. At a court appearance on May 11, Allen’s legal team asked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden to disqualify at least two top Department of Justice officials including U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Acting AG Todd Blanche.
The argument was that their presence at the dinner makes them potential victims and witnesses. According to Al Jazeera, Allen, 31, stood silently in an orange jumpsuit and waist shackles as his attorney Tezira Abe entered the plea on his behalf. The charges against him include attempted assassination of the president, assault on a federal officer with a deadly weapon, and multiple firearms offenses.
If convicted on the attempted assassination count alone, he faces life in prison. Prosecutors allege Allen fired a shotgun at a Secret Service agent before storming a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton, where the dinner was held. Authorities say he traveled to DC by train with a shotgun, pistol, and knives, and booked a room at the same hotel where the event took place.
The defense’s request to remove Pirro and Blanche centers on their attendance
Defense attorney Eugene Ohm called it “wholly inappropriate” for victims of the alleged attack to be prosecuting the case, arguing that Pirro’s decades-long friendship with Trump adds another layer of conflict. The defense is now likely to seek the recusal of Pirro’s entire office, though they’ve indicated they won’t push to remove the entire Department of Justice.
Judge McFadden didn’t rule on the spot but gave prosecutors until May 22 to respond in writing, specifically asking whether the government considers Pirro and Blanche to be victims in the case. The defense’s filing points to Pirro’s social media activity immediately after the incident as evidence of her direct involvement.
Within 30 minutes of the shooting, Pirro posted a video on Instagram saying, “I’ve been taken out of the ballroom after the sounds of shots fired.” Her team has since argued that her public statements and personal relationship with Trump create an “appearance of a conflict,” even if no actual bias exists.
Pirro has pushed back hard against the recusal request
In a statement to Newsweek, she said her office will “evaluate the motion and respond in court,” adding, “We will not tolerate people who come to the District of Columbia to engage in antidemocratic acts of political violence; and we will prosecute all such acts to the fullest extent of the law.”
Earlier this month, she told CNN she has no plans to step aside. “Absolutely not,” Pirro said. “There is no way. That would be like telling witnesses you can’t testify at the trial because you were there. The truth is that there were 2,500 of us who were there, and my ability to prosecute this case has nothing to do with my being there.”
Legal analysts are split on whether the defense’s argument holds water. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi said Pirro should recuse herself, even if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety. “Jeanine Pirro, in a light most favorable to her, is both a witness and a victim to this alleged crime. There could be an actual conflict, but there surely is an appearance problem.” He called recusal her “wisest course,” noting it would eliminate a potential appeal issue later.
Others, however, see the motion as a long shot. Neama Rahmani, another former federal prosecutor, said there’s “little to no chance” Pirro will be disqualified. “She is not a material, necessary witness,” Rahmani said. “Allen didn’t even breach the perimeter, so I’m not even sure that she even witnessed anything, and she hasn’t been named as a victim in the indictment. There’s really no legal basis.”
The debate over recusal isn’t just about legal technicalities
It’s also about public perception. Allen’s lawyers argue that allowing Pirro to lead the prosecution would undermine confidence in the justice system. “Americans will wonder how the American justice system can permit a victim to prosecute a criminal defendant in a case involving them?” they wrote in their filing.
Legal analyst Elie Honig echoed this concern, saying Pirro and Blanche are not just witnesses but “probably intended victims.” He warned that refusing to recuse could hand the defense a powerful appeal argument, even if the evidence against Allen is overwhelming. “There are federal courts of appeals in this country that have thrown out guilty verdicts because prosecutors refuse to recuse when they should have recused,” Honig said.
The stakes are high, and the outcome of this motion could shape the trajectory of the case. If Pirro’s office is disqualified, another DOJ team would take over, potentially delaying proceedings. If she stays on, the defense will almost certainly use it as ammunition in any future appeals. For now, all eyes are on the government’s response, due by May 22. Allen is scheduled to return to court on June 29, where the judge could rule on the recusal request.
(Featured image: CCTV)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
