So this case was thrown out because Jack Smith was too independent?
Cannon dismisses the docs case in FL
- Thread starter funksouljon
- Start date
is that even an option? while I don't know that much about criminal process, i'd think the double jeopardy clause - not to mention other sorts of more general estoppel principles - might have something to say about that.
It really doesn’t matter. There wasn’t going to be a trial anyway and Trump is going to win and kill this thing. The delay strategy has worked.
Amazing how the guy gets away with stuff.
Amazing how the guy gets away with stuff.
Not sure why double jeopardy would apply, no trial was every held so there was no jeopardy to begin with.
again, i'm not fully up to speed on 2xj, and you may be right that it's only a 'final' decision of a factfinder that it attaches to, but it is a bit odd to me that the same prosecutor found to lack authority (before we even get to the sufficiency of indictment issues) could simply go somewhere else (rather than upstairs to the circuit).
He wouldn’t be going elsewhere though, he has to appeal this ruling.
And he’d almost certainly win.
Cannon said the executive branch cant appoint a prosecutor, only the legislative branch. Hurr was appointed by Garland so his appointment was also unconstitutional.
The issue is dead! Not going anywhere. Stop beating a dead horse.
A single federal judge made this ruling, against all previous precedent. It most certainly is not dead.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas tackled a question in his presidential immunity opinion Monday that Donald Trump’s attorneys didn’t bring before the nation’s highest court: Was special counsel Jack Smith legally appointed?
Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.
Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.
He also wrote a concurring opinion that delved into the separate question of whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal prosecutions of Trump.
Thomas argued both that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate. He said he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution,” Thomas wrote. “A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
Thomas was weighing in on what is generally considered a far-fetched legal theory pushed by Trump’s attorneys in lower courts and by some conservative legal groups. They argue that Smith was illegally appointed and funded and say the criminal cases against Trump should be dismissed.
Trump filed a motion to dismiss the federal classified documents case against him in Florida on the basis that Smith was illegally appointed. He did not file a similar motion in the D.C. federal election interference case.
Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.
Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.
He also wrote a concurring opinion that delved into the separate question of whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal prosecutions of Trump.
Thomas argued both that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate. He said he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution,” Thomas wrote. “A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
Thomas was weighing in on what is generally considered a far-fetched legal theory pushed by Trump’s attorneys in lower courts and by some conservative legal groups. They argue that Smith was illegally appointed and funded and say the criminal cases against Trump should be dismissed.
Trump filed a motion to dismiss the federal classified documents case against him in Florida on the basis that Smith was illegally appointed. He did not file a similar motion in the D.C. federal election interference case.
Do you believe the justice department never has the right to appoint a special counsel?
No one should be shocked about this.
This is and always has been the modus operandi of our legal system. It is just now being thrown in the faces of the citizens in a way that is now eye opening to the multitudes. This type of “justice” happens everyday in every city, state and county. Those with the means ruthlessly exploit the justice system against those who do not have the means. Unfortunately the vast majority who are seeing it out in the open are the ones who will not learn from this. They will continue in life oblivious.
And life goes on…
This is and always has been the modus operandi of our legal system. It is just now being thrown in the faces of the citizens in a way that is now eye opening to the multitudes. This type of “justice” happens everyday in every city, state and county. Those with the means ruthlessly exploit the justice system against those who do not have the means. Unfortunately the vast majority who are seeing it out in the open are the ones who will not learn from this. They will continue in life oblivious.
And life goes on…
Last edited:
so a law that exists. That you don't like.
Thanks for proving the point.
You're bad at this.
Yeah, but I picked his avatar after he bet me that the Colorado ballot shenanigans would hold up in court.
Maybe emotion is clouding his judgement.
I’m trying to get one of the ‘end of democracy’ proponents to make a similar bet, but they seem to lack conviction.
In other words, “Dump it, Aileen, we got your back.”
The law didn't exist. They wrote it specifically to target trump. Can you not even read?
...which would matter under Cannon's reasoning if he were actually prosecuting someone, enfeebled or otherwise. But here's the thing - I'm fairly confident that notwithstanding the potential impropriety of the appointment, Congress' Article I oversight authority would not preclude it using whatever Hur dredged up however it pleased in, say, an oversight hearing context, short of a constitutional privilege such as self incrimination or 1A press protections. (For example, it often surprises people to learn that Congress technically doesnt recognize the attorney privilege when they really want something.)
I think you're right; doj has too much invested in the SC process generally. The only thing that could kill it, imo, is if they just say we're going to let it go given the proximity to the election.
Oh look, the right likes the justice system again.
Except this is not good for them. This will get appealed and likely lose, simply because it has been in front of courts before and they found Special Councils to be legit and the argument that has been made against it has been tried times before, and is considered a "fringe" legal view on the matter despite it being mentioned (probably with a *wink wink* to Judge Cannon included) by Justice Thomas in the immunity case. Cannon in her ruling even stated this only applies to Trump case, and not other cases, which is a nice idea but you can bet anyone convicted by a SC will be filing motions for dismissal based on this, because why not?
Smith will appeal, and this and likely win. Smith will likely file for her to be removed from the case since this would be the 3rd time she has been reversed for her lack of following the laws and making up her own and giving the perception that justice isn't being carried out fairly.
Yes a setback for justice and the law, but hopefully the 11th circuit bosses get Cannon away from this case once and for all.
Except this is not good for them. This will get appealed and likely lose, simply because it has been in front of courts before and they found Special Councils to be legit and the argument that has been made against it has been tried times before, and is considered a "fringe" legal view on the matter despite it being mentioned (probably with a *wink wink* to Judge Cannon included) by Justice Thomas in the immunity case. Cannon in her ruling even stated this only applies to Trump case, and not other cases, which is a nice idea but you can bet anyone convicted by a SC will be filing motions for dismissal based on this, because why not?
Smith will appeal, and this and likely win. Smith will likely file for her to be removed from the case since this would be the 3rd time she has been reversed for her lack of following the laws and making up her own and giving the perception that justice isn't being carried out fairly.
Yes a setback for justice and the law, but hopefully the 11th circuit bosses get Cannon away from this case once and for all.
Shocked, no. Surprised, yes. Do recognize that the argument(s) are non-trivial ones. But they're non trivial ones that have been consistently losers up to now. As to inequities, you are certainly right, though in criminal cases, a decent lawyer will always turn over a lot of creative stones.
If nothing else, I don’t think they can. This would be a horrible precedent to let stand.
I think it’s hilarious that you guys attack her yet never had a problem with the controversial calls by the judges in the two New York trials.
I don’t agree with Cannon’s take, but I also didn’t agree with several of the calls in the New York cases. All three seemed to be politically motivated.
We have seen way too many recent cases where what has been established as Precedent is being overturned. Coincidence?
I think not.
We are seeing a takeover of our government by a radical minority in very incremental stages.
The head of the Heritage Foundation has told us this is a revolution (that will be bloodless if the Left allows it). Project 2025 is for real. The American people had better wake up or we are going to lose even more rights.
Away with what? Jack smith illegally being appointed? Try him again the correct way. They won’t because it was BS through and through.
