Classified documents case against Trump thrown out

Post Reply New Topic

A federal judge in Florida on Monday dismissed the criminal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump and two co-defendants, ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith as prosecutor for the case violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The bombshell ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon — who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump — ruling comes two days after a would-be assassin narrowly missed killing Trump during a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

The ruling, which also tossed criminal charges faced by Trump’s valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos De Oliveira, was issued hours before the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, which will formally confirm Trump as the GOP presidential nominee for November’s election.

Smith’s office can appeal Cannon’s ruling, and is almost certain to do so.

The issue of the legality of his appointment is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cannon in her ruling granting a dismissal motion by Trump’s found that Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution’s appointments clause, which says “Officers of the United States” must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

She also ruled that Smith’s use of “permanent indefinite appropriation” — funding for his prosecution office — violated that constitutional clause.

Cannon’s ruling on the legality of Smith’s appointment is not binding on the judge in the D.C. case, but is certain to be cited by Trump’s lawyers there in a renewed effort to get that election case tossed out.

In my experience, aren't special prosecutors usually appointed to investigate sitting Presidents e.g. Nixon, Clinton? Appointing one to investigate the President's electoral rival seems guaranteed to fail.

If there's sufficient evidence to show that Trump is keeping classified documents as a private citizen, can't he just be charged and tried in Federal Court? I think that's what would happen to me, if the FBI found a classified document in my house.

I think it's a serious crime, not a topic for hearings in Congress. He either has such documents or he doesn't.

I've read that the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith could have charges refiled (possibly) because Trump hadn't been acting as President any longer when he stole the documents. In such a case, Trumpster Judge Cannon would not the the sitting judge in the next case.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ack-smith/

This is probably wish casting. If Trump wins as is likely it will be his justice department. He will have full ability to order both the classified documents and “insurrection” case dropped.

A special council was appointed due to the perceived conflict of interest of Biden’s criminal justice department investigating his political rival. Whether the target of the perceived conflict of interest
must be a current Federal office holder is a matter that will probably be decided by SCOTUS.

He had the documents. Several people have said that they were present when he showed them to them. The FBI when they raided Mar-a-Lago saw them, photographed them, took them. This is why this case was considered a slam dunk, the most likely to result in a conviction. So much for that.

Federal prosecutors asked an appeals court Monday to restore Donald Trump’s classified documents case, pushing back on the former president's claims that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the U.S. Constitution.

"The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded," Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce, a member of Smith's team, wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. "In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels."

It also notes that attorneys general have been appointing special counsels for more than 150 years, quoting from a 1998 law review article written by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh that refers to the practice as a “deeply rooted tradition.”

The brief places a lot of emphasis on the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling in United States v. Nixon, in which the court upheld the enforceability of a subpoena issued by the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

The legality of a special counsel or prosecutor was not directly at question in Nixon, but the Supreme Court issued its ruling based on the presumption that such appointments were allowed.

Cannon’s order dismissing Trump’s classified documents case referred to that section of the Nixon decision as nonbinding, but Smith's team contended Monday that the decision was binding to lower courts.

"Apart from the district court below, every court to consider the question has concluded that the Supreme Court’s determination that those statutes authorized the Attorney General to appoint the Watergate Special Prosecutor was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed and therefore constitutes a holding that binds lower courts," Pearce wrote.

Pearce notes in Monday's filing what he characterized as the cascading impact that Cannon’s dismissal would have on the federal government if her reasoning is upheld.

“If the Attorney General lacks the power to appoint inferior officers, that conclusion would invalidate the appointment of every member of the Department who exercises significant authority and occupies a continuing office, other than the few that are specifically identified by statute," Pearce wrote.

"The district court’s rationale would likewise raise questions about hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch, including in the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor," Pearce added. "The implausibility of that outcome underscores why the district court’s novel conclusions lack merit.”