Judge has dismissed the case, story breaking now ...
Trump and the classified docs case
- Thread starter diy_fun_uk
- Start date
Sponsored Links
There's only limited scope to appeal that depending on how well Canon has navigated the legal waters. Given she's incompetent she's probably left room for it to be overturned by the relevant circle court.
But the main point is to delay it long enough for Trump to be elected so he can scrap the prosecution.
But the main point is to delay it long enough for Trump to be elected so he can scrap the prosecution.
Sponsored Links
He's having a good week isn’t he?
[ Aileen ] Cannon’s opinion makes a mockery of justice under law. Reduced to its essentials, she accepted the complaint of Trump’s lawyers that special counsel Jack Smith wields power too independent of the president and attorney general to fit within the statutes Congress enacted to authorize appointment of special federal prosecutors – while Trump himself was publicly saying the very opposite: that Smith is persecuting him as Biden’s puppet.
Only someone determined to reach that conclusion could have written what Cannon concocted. To decide that Congress never gave the attorney general authority to appoint a special counsel, she first had to set aside the landmark holding underpinning the 1974 Nixon Tapes case. She wrongly dismissed as mere “dictum” its essential conclusion that the Watergate special prosecutor who demanded the tapes was lawfully appointed.
She was wrong from the start. To get where she was determined to go, she had to set aside as irrelevant the flawless 2019 ruling of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia which followed Nixon. That decision, the appellate court correctly concluded, had unanimously held that Congress, in enacting the very statutes Cannon found wanting here, had “vested in the Attorney General … the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties”.
Cannon’s tortured reasoning fails throughout her 93-page opinion. She asserts, for example, that the congressional statute authorizing the attorney general to “appoint officials … to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States” cannot mean what it says because it is “housed within a chapter [largely] devoted to the FBI”. She never explains why, if Congress intended this statute to give attorneys general broad authority to appoint only FBI officials to “detect” crimes against the United States, Congress chose to include the words “and prosecute?”
Judge Cannon’s opinion conspicuously echoes (and duly cites) Justice Clarence Thomas’s solo concurrence two weeks earlier in Trump v United States. Going beyond the immunity issue raised in that case, Thomas alone expressed doubt about the constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. As though coaching Cannon from the sidelines, he invited unnamed “lower courts” to answer what he called “essential questions concerning … Smith’s appointment”, venturing where no prior court (or fellow justice) dared to tread. Cannon happily took the hint.
Only someone determined to reach that conclusion could have written what Cannon concocted. To decide that Congress never gave the attorney general authority to appoint a special counsel, she first had to set aside the landmark holding underpinning the 1974 Nixon Tapes case. She wrongly dismissed as mere “dictum” its essential conclusion that the Watergate special prosecutor who demanded the tapes was lawfully appointed.
She was wrong from the start. To get where she was determined to go, she had to set aside as irrelevant the flawless 2019 ruling of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia which followed Nixon. That decision, the appellate court correctly concluded, had unanimously held that Congress, in enacting the very statutes Cannon found wanting here, had “vested in the Attorney General … the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties”.
Cannon’s tortured reasoning fails throughout her 93-page opinion. She asserts, for example, that the congressional statute authorizing the attorney general to “appoint officials … to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States” cannot mean what it says because it is “housed within a chapter [largely] devoted to the FBI”. She never explains why, if Congress intended this statute to give attorneys general broad authority to appoint only FBI officials to “detect” crimes against the United States, Congress chose to include the words “and prosecute?”
Judge Cannon’s opinion conspicuously echoes (and duly cites) Justice Clarence Thomas’s solo concurrence two weeks earlier in Trump v United States. Going beyond the immunity issue raised in that case, Thomas alone expressed doubt about the constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. As though coaching Cannon from the sidelines, he invited unnamed “lower courts” to answer what he called “essential questions concerning … Smith’s appointment”, venturing where no prior court (or fellow justice) dared to tread. Cannon happily took the hint.
So the courts will have to reach some decision on her findings. However Trump wins as the case gets delayed.
Post #7 is a copy-and-paste of excerpts from a Guardian Comment opinion piece.
www.theguardian.com
Should the source not be disclosed or referenced?
Aileen Cannon has taken a sledgehammer to the rule of law | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
The federal judge’s ruling in the Trump document case is a travesty
www.theguardian.com
Should the source not be disclosed or referenced?
You mean convicted fraudster, swindler and rapist Don, surely.
can if you like. i don't give an f.Post #7 is a copy-and-paste of excerpts from a Guardian Comment opinion piece.
Aileen Cannon has taken a sledgehammer to the rule of law | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
The federal judge’s ruling in the Trump document case is a travesty
Should the source not be disclosed or referenced?
bonkers barely scratches the surface - if the Democrats don't get the s. together sharpish these Trumpublicans will slice n' dice the constitution to serve their own agenda. Adam Schiff thinks they could lose both Senate and the House, the way things are going...and the best it could get is Kamala Harris stepping in if Biden gets the message his message isn't cutting through the Trumpian noise.
Very worrying things are happening. The Trump Supreme Court has decided that the President has almost total immunity. This judge is wanting to limit a President from even being investigated. Who knows if the same Supreme Court will agree. What if Trump simply decides not to leave office in 2028.
Sponsored Links
