Judge Eileen Cannon dismisses Classified Documents case against Trump

[Alien826]

The DoJ cannot re-file this without first appealing Judge Cannon's decision. Any such appeal would take quite some time and would most likely would include consideration of Supreme Court Justice Thomas' opinion which stated Jack Smith's appointment was wrong. These things are highly unlikely to happen.

Yes, and as with all of this it's delay, delay. Nothing else matters as if Trump gets elected all legal principles, and all these cases, go out of the window.

On the other hand, if Biden wins Trump is toast as I'm sure he very well knows. No need to rush then, the cases can take as long as they take.

 

[fantome profane]

Any such appeal would take quite some time

And that is all this is about. Delay delay delay. The fact that Trump broke the law and endangered national security doesn't matter. Just delay delay delay.

 

[We Never Know]

She has agreed that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, was wrongly appointed.

Apparently, the United States has no mechanism for dealing with corrupt judges -- she has been working for Trump since the beginning of this case. Unbelievable.

Corrupt judge?

The question should be did appointing him violate the appointment clause and if so is the ruling just

"The Appointments Clause requires that “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States” be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of “inferior” officers “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” 1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) “principal” officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) “inferior” officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.

Overview of the Appointments Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[fantome profane]

The question should be ...

No! The question should be did Donald Trump break the law and endanger national security!

 

[We Never Know]

No! The question should be did Donald Trump break the law and endanger national security!

If he was wrongly appointed then it makes the case invalid.

Same as if you have someone charged with murder and the evidence is wrongly collected, that evidence can't be used, or the case is will be dismissed.... Even though you know the person is guilty.

Its about the laws and following the laws right?

Wasn't there a movie quote of something like "when those who make the laws don't follow the laws, then there aren't any laws".

 

[Shaul]

The issue was not raised by Trump's attorneys at the SCOTUS hearing on Presidential immunity. Thomas' opinion is from the ruling on that case.

You might want to read Judge Cannon's 93 page decision. Also imagining that the Senate could move quickly on such an appointment is far fetched. But I am not going to argue with you about it. You have your fantasy. Good luck with that.

 

[We Never Know]

The issue was not raised by Trump's attorneys at the SCOTUS hearing on Presidential immunity. Thomas' opinion is from the ruling on that case.

She tossed it because Smith was unlawfully appointed. And Trump and his team did bring that up before.

"Judge tosses Trump documents case, ruling prosecutor was unlawfully appointed"

"Trump's lawyers challenged the legal authority for Garland's 2022 decision to appoint Smith to lead investigations into Trump. They argued that the appointment violated the U.S. Constitution because Smith's office was not created by Congress and the special counsel was not confirmed by the Senate."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-ruling-prosecutor-unlawfully-appointed-2024-07-15/#:~:text=Trump's%20lawyers%20challenged%20the%20legal,not%20confirmed%20by%20the%20Senate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, there is no doubt about her corruption. She was told by her more senior judges that she should turn down this appointment since she had already been reprimanded for earlier work of hers that was overturned in defending Trump. She has clearly delayed the trial as much as possible rather than allowing it to proceed at a reasonable rate. And now she has used a flimsy excuse to dismiss the case knowing that she was going to be removed sooner or later and delaying the case even more. She can dismiss it, but dismissals can be appealed.

So she's denying Trump his Constitutional right to a speedy trial while she's at it. But then again with Project 2025 it's obvious that Reps amd Cons see the Constitution as something to wipe their rears with.

 

[Shaul]

The issue was not raised by Trump's attorneys at the SCOTUS hearing on Presidential immunity. Thomas' opinion is from the ruling on that case.

You might want to read Judge Cannon's 93 page decision. Also imagining that the Senate could move quickly on such an appointment is far fetched. But I am not going to argue with you about it. You have your fantasy. Good luck with that.

 

[We Never Know]

So she's denying Trump his Constitutional right to a speedy trial while she's at it. But then again with Project 2025 it's obvious that Reps amd Cons see the Constitution as something to wipe their rears with.

The right to a speedy trial can only be denied if you want a speedy trial.
Trump didn't want a speedy trial, they wanted it after the election. Therefore no speedy trial right denied.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, and as with all of this it's delay, delay. Nothing else matters as if Trump gets elected all legal principles, and all these cases, go out of the window.

On the other hand, if Biden wins Trump is toast as I'm sure he very well knows. No need to rush then, the cases can take as long as they take.

It wasn't the defense that created the timing issue. If the prosecution had filed promptly instead of years after the events they entire case could have been resolved long ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The right to a speedy trial can only be denied if you want a speedy trial.
Trump didn't want a speedy trial, they wanted it after the election. Therefore no speedy trial right denied.

I'd argue Trump, much like Biden, isn't the most mentally fit or competent for such things amd wiser, stabler, less senile minds should be looking out for this.

 

[We Never Know]

I'd argue Trump, much like Biden, isn't the most mentally fit or competent for such things amd wiser, stabler, less senile minds should be looking out for this.

Ok. That is relevant to the right to a speedy trial how?

 

[The Hammer]

I got that you were being sarcastic. She is clearly corrupt and in the bag for Trump. But we know that based on all the ruling she has made (and all the rulings she has not made), not based on who appointed her. At this level everyone involved is likely to have been appointed by the defendant, or appointed by the defendant's political opponent. We can still and should expect fair and impartial judges. We did not get that in this case.

Prove the courts are corrupt, by planting a corrupt judge and encouraging it tacitly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That wouldn't "cure" the illegality of his original appointment.

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have appointed special counsels as well as independent counsels (a precursor to special counsels) to oversee investigations with greater independence and avoid the appearance of a conflict-of-interest in politically-sensitive investigations. Those appointments have been been consistently upheld in court.

 

[Shaul]

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have appointed special counsels as well as independent counsels (a precursor to special counsels) to oversee investigations with greater independence and avoid the appearance of a conflict-of-interest in politically-sensitive investigations. Those appointments have been been consistently upheld in court.

And are very different from Jack Smith's appointment. He was not confirmed by the Senate either directly nor previously as a member of the DoJ.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.

That's from Thomas Clarence's Cocurring Opinion. But he is wrong. A "special counsel" is just a lawyer hired to prosecute special cases, and who is granted some freedoms to act. He's a prosecutor. The law allows for prosecutors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And are very different from Jack Smith's appointment. He was not confirmed by the Senate either directly nor previously as a member of the DoJ.

Why would he need such a Senate confirmation? You seem to have forgotten that Trump was charged as a citizen. He may have been President when he started his crimes, he was a civilian when he carried them out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Apparently, the United States has no mechanism for dealing with corrupt judges --

Not when the appeals process is at the mercy of othe corrupt judges.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not when the appeals process is at the mercy of othe corrupt judges.

The United States really does teeter on the precipice right now, that's for sure. If Trump wins, and even worse if the House and Senate return Republican majorities, I think the nation is toast, as it exists today.

The only hope I see after that is the oath sworn by the military: I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed."

The Consitution comes first, and must be protected against enemies even if they are domestic -- and even if they are the President.