Judge Eileen Cannon dismisses Classified Documents case against Trump

[Alien826]

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

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-ruling-prosecutor-unlawfully-appointed-2024-07-15/

Prosecutors are likely to appeal Cannon's ruling. Courts in other cases have repeatedly upheld the ability of the U.S. Justice Department to appoint special counsels to handle certain politically sensitive investigations.

This is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal and Judge Cannon rebuked, as she was over the special master.

 

[We Never Know]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-ruling-prosecutor-unlawfully-appointed-2024-07-15/

Prosecutors are likely to appeal Cannon's ruling. Courts in other cases have repeatedly upheld the ability of the U.S. Justice Department to appoint special counsels to handle certain politically sensitive investigations.

This is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal and Judge Cannon rebuked, as she was over the special master.

If course an appeal will happen. Its the next step.
I keep seeing people say its been done before.

What I don't see are any links or information to where it was done, who did it, or the circumstances of a case.

-Were the before's challenged as illegally appointed?
-Were they federal cases?
-Involving a former president?

Anyone have example of cases where it was done before?

Edit...

Here is what I am looking at...

If it has happened before on other cases and people were convicted, and the judges ruling stands even after an appeal...

Will those other cases be in jeopardy of being overturned on the same grounds?

Anyone want to go down that worm hole

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Everything onr needs to know about the next likely reactionary regime can be seen in Trump's selection of running mate.

As many have noted:

No one is coming to save us. We either repudiate Trump-Vance at the voting booth or live with the consequences.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Everything onr needs to know about the next likely reactionary regime can be seen in Trump's selection of running mate.

As many have noted:

No one is coming to save us. We either repudiate Trump-Vance at the voting booth or live with the consequences.​

Too, too right. My partner's and my best friend is American (from Schenectady, NY), but lives here now because he married a Canadian girl and brings up his son as a Canadian (actually, the son did have dual citizenship, but has recently renounced his U.S. citizenship). Our friend retains his dual c-ship, and has already done the paperwork to vote from here. He is absolutely mortified at what's going on, and working towards bring other members of his family here. They are beginning to sense a doom they can't get a leash on somehow.

Americans who really love "liberty" (those who understand what it really is, not the freedom to preach in other people's faces and dictate to others how they should live) have my deep sympathy, because if things go the way the appear to be going, it is going to set not just the U.S. but the world back in the fight for liberty by decades -- many, many decades.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

From what I hear, SCOTUS had ruled earlier that
such appointments are constitutional. But the
judge ignored stare decisis in favor of Thomas's
opinion. Could this be that she serves Trump,
ie, the one who appointed her?
Nah....that would suggest corruption...or incompetence.

 

[We Never Know]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-ruling-prosecutor-unlawfully-appointed-2024-07-15/

Prosecutors are likely to appeal Cannon's ruling. Courts in other cases have repeatedly upheld the ability of the U.S. Justice Department to appoint special counsels to handle certain politically sensitive investigations.

This is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal and Judge Cannon rebuked, as she was over the special master.

There is also this...

"Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said on Monday in a post to X, formerly Twitter, that Cannon's decision may lead to the documents case being revived through an appeal that could see her thrown off of the case.

"Dismissal of Trump documents case may actually be good news for Jack Smith, who can now immediately appeal to 11th Circuit and ask for case to be reassigned to a new judge," McQuade wrote. "But more delay ..."

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is also this...

"Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said on Monday in a post to X, formerly Twitter, that Cannon's decision may lead to the documents case being revived through an appeal that could see her thrown off of the case.

"Dismissal of Trump documents case may actually be good news for Jack Smith, who can now immediately appeal to 11th Circuit and ask for case to be reassigned to a new judge," McQuade wrote. "But more delay ..."

MSN

www.msn.com

Cannon has continually delayed this case. She got close to crossing the line where it decision could be appealed but never crossed it. Probably because she knows that she will be reversed. Her actions are no different from the last time that she was reversed. She saw an excuse to dismiss the case and by doing so put another huge delay in the case even if it is overturned. You were right earlier when you pointed out that a speedy trial is a right to the defendant. That is because historically before that right was guaranteed that the person who needed their rights protected was the defendant. This is probably the first time it is the rights of the American people that need to be defended by a speedy trial.

At any rate, this case will almost surely not be decided before the election no matter the result.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No double jeopardy is attached because a jury was never seated.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I don't think anyone in the military is going to interpret that oath as meaning that they can decide what the Constitution means or disobey lawful orders from the chain of command, which goes up to the President. It would essentially take a military coup to stop Trump or curtail his power. Besides, Trump and Republicans have shown a past history of very creatively interpreting both the Constitution and statutory law, so I think that the military could be given commands to carry out actions that appear to blatantly violate past interpretations of the Constitution and the laws. We won't be the first democracy to fall to authoritarian rule by civilian authorities and have that rule backed up by the military. The global trend for that to happen with increasing frequency is already in progress, and Trump's election might well influence even more conservative movements around the world to redouble their efforts to roll back civil liberties.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think anyone in the military is going to interpret that oath as meaning that they can decide what the Constitution means or disobey lawful orders from the chain of command, which goes up to the President. It would essentially take a military coup to stop Trump or curtail his power. Besides, Trump and Republicans have shown a past history of very creatively interpreting both the Constitution and statutory law, so I think that the military could be given commands to carry out actions that appear to blatantly violate past interpretations of the Constitution and the laws. We won't be the first democracy to fall to authoritarian rule by civilian authorities and have that rule backed up by the military. The global trend for that to happen with increasing frequency is already in progress, and Trump's election might well influence even more conservative movements around the world to redouble their efforts to roll back civil liberties.

Well, I did say it was a "hope," and not a likelihood. So America on the precipice might just fall off. Too bad for most Americans (even the ones who may make it happen). But what're ya gonna do, eh?

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I did say it was a "hope," and not a likelihood. So America on the precipice might just fall off. Too bad for most Americans (even the ones who may make it happen). But what're ya gonna do, eh?

Especially the ones who make it happen. They aren't the ones who benefit from his economic policies, and Trump will be in his final term as president. So he will feel empowered to try anything he can get away with, especially with the Supreme Court's new interpretation of presidential power. He and others in the government will have a very broad interpretation of what constitutes an "official act".

 

[F1fan]

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.

I can see a situation where the many traditionalists will have a problem with the abuses of power that Trump seems inclined to do. This could be a big battle along certain lines from red to blue states, between the parties, and among judges.

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.

And this illustrates other lines that might divide. How people/groups interpret the constitution could see itself as a conlfict, where both sides think they are the patriots. That's one dilemma with the constitution and many laws being so broad and ambiguous, they are open to wide interpretation. The originalists seem to be originalist when it suits them.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

Nope, do you care if someone is illegally prosecuted even if they are guilty? Or do the ends justify the means?

 

[F1fan]

Well, I did say it was a "hope," and not a likelihood. So America on the precipice might just fall off. Too bad for most Americans (even the ones who may make it happen). But what're ya gonna do, eh?

I think the question is if Trump and MAGA attains power and does what they say they will is how many Americans will be affected in ways that they feel a daily, or even weekly, negative impact. I have friends with young kids and I wonder what the new MAGA America would be for them. Most of us won't have a direct impact. As a white male I will be privileged. Women will be the most affected. Husbands and partners also. Families as a whole will have added stress due to fewer reproductive rights. The biggest issue for the nation, and world, will be the economic policies that most economists see as troubling. We can also expect less contentment among the majority who never voted for Trump, but are powerless to improve the nation they love.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope, do you care if someone is illegally prosecuted even if they are guilty? Or do the ends justify the means?

This is a legal prosecution. Cannon’s ridiculous ruling will be overturned in the 11 circuit. I guarantee it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The biggest issue for the nation, and world, will be the economic policies that most economists see as troubling.

You forget the environmental impact of getting rid of regulations and oversight, where climate change is already wreaking havoc around the states. MAGAs have been fooled into thinking there's nothing amiss. I bet they, or their children, will miss having a habitable climate in which to live and breathe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nope, do you care if someone is illegally prosecuted even if they are guilty? Or do the ends justify the means?

There have been many special counsels since about 1875, and they have prosecuted many crimes.

Special counsel - Wikipedia

 

[Wandering Monk]

US v. Nixon

 

[Wandering Monk]

Using Cannon's reasoning (and Thomas' not so subtle hint to her) the Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden case was unlawfully appointed also.

 

[We Never Know]

Using Cannon's reasoning (and Thomas' not so subtle hint to her) the Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden case was unlawfully appointed also.

Weiss is a US attorney, nominated by Trump to the US district court of Delaware and retained by Biden.

Smith is a private citizen.

David C. Weiss - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org