Cannon dismisses the docs case in FL

[Joes Place]

Well thats not really a surprising step.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/classified-documents-case-trump-dismissed-aileen-cannon/index.html#:~:text=Judge%20Aileen%20Cannon%20has%20dismissed,Jack%20Smith%20violated%20the%20Constitution.

She played her role, delaying as long as practical, before dropping it (which will be overturned, but not in time for a trial before the election).

 

[Section25]

Did you even READ Cannon's opinion? How about you start on page 23 and educate yourself. 509 & 510 literally have nothing to do with the appointment. 600 was NOT passed by Congress but added by the DOJ after the independent counsel expired.

Totally ridiculous arguments.

Thanks again, I asked if he read the opinion. Very well written and supported. I look forward to Smith's appeal. The appeal will fail.

 

[Joes Place]

Special prosecutors have been a thing for more than a century.

Special prosecutors are statutorily called out as being "legally appointed" by DOJ via Congressional laws.

 

[your_master5]

FWIW

§533. Investigative and other officials; appointment
The Attorney General may appoint officials—

(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;

(2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President; and

(3) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.


This section does not limit the authority of departments and agencies to investigate crimes against the United States when investigative jurisdiction has been assigned by law to such departments and agencies.

600 does not reference 533 AT ALL and utilizing 533 in Cannon's opinion (which you need to freaking read) breaks the separations of powers. It also says "officials" not "officers" (you know IN the constitution) which is totally different.

 

[Joes Place]

That’s actually good news for Smith.

It's bad news for anyone who wanted a trial verdict before November.

 

[your_master5]

It was the DOJs argument not mine.

And they were wrong and lost in court. If you think it goes to SC after the 11th Circuit, it's all but dead given Thomas' response. It's over.

 

[Section25]

She played her role, delaying as long as practical, before dropping it (which will be overturned, but not in time for a trial before the election).

It would not be overturned. They did not have statutory authority. Under what grounds would she be overturned? They are in save face mode as will be Merchan.

 

[your_master5]

Special prosecutors have been a thing for more than a century.

Jfc, I can't with you today. Terrible

 

[dgordo]

And they were wrong and lost in court. If you think it goes to SC after the 11th Circuit, it's all but dead given Thomas' response. It's over.

I definitely agree that Thomas believes the appointment was unconstitutional.

 

[Joes Place]

While I didn't read all 93 pages of the actual order, the parts that I read told me enough. While I tend to think judges get a really wide berth in managing their trial process, when it comes to the merits, this is a wrong/erroneous decision. The Appointments Clause take has been rejected previously; there is supervision of the SC by a politically accountable person subject to confirmation. And SCOTUS itself just this term rejected the idea that the Appropriations Clause requires the kind of line item authorization the judge has suggested.

Oh well, some judges bad for him, some judges good. What will be really interesting to see is whether the G takes an appeal from this. On the one hand, DOJ has historically defended the viability of SC's and their kin pretty vigorously over the years. On the other, they usually are careful about exercising 'discretion' in proximity to elections, and who knows, perhaps the case has served its purpose at this point.

They've already approved/supported Smith appealing it.

 

[MitchLL]

The GOP house inquiry is based on more fact than an impeachment over a phone call. You do understand neither party is ever going to inquire or impeach when they have the votes. Suicide for either party unless there is a real egregious matter with complete bi-partisan support.
To act as though both parties do not use inquiries for political theater shows your naivety.

There was never anything close to justifying impeachment of Biden.

Trump ordered it to try and smear his opponent.

But I bet you already knew that.

 

[Section25]

I definitely agree that Thomas believes the appointment was unconstitutional.

Okay, agree then that when a bone is thrown out in an opinion like Thomas did, it is because they are truly saying hint,hint to lower courts.

 

[sober_teacher]

Jfc, I can't with you today. Terrible

Feel free to explain why this special prosecutor was unconstitutional, but every other one was perfectly legit.

 

[lucas80]

While I didn't read all 93 pages of the actual order, the parts that I read told me enough. While I tend to think judges get a really wide berth in managing their trial process, when it comes to the merits, this is a wrong/erroneous decision. The Appointments Clause take has been rejected previously; there is supervision of the SC by a politically accountable person subject to confirmation. And SCOTUS itself just this term rejected the idea that the Appropriations Clause requires the kind of line item authorization the judge has suggested.

Oh well, some judges bad for him, some judges good. What will be really interesting to see is whether the G takes an appeal from this. On the one hand, DOJ has historically defended the viability of SC's and their kin pretty vigorously over the years. On the other, they usually are careful about exercising 'discretion' in proximity to elections, and who knows, perhaps the case has served its purpose at this point.

Doubtful. I imagine we haven't seen 10 percent of the government's case. The point of the case is you cannot take stuff that is not yours, refuse to return it, and coordinate with others, including your lawyers, to conceal the crime.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Throwing mud at the wall??

No, that was the GOP House inquiry into a Biden impeachment.

Stop being stupid.

Yes, mud and we all now know it didn't stick!

 

[lucas80]

Mueller had HELD a position created by law. Does not matter that he was retired. His credentials and clearances within government had not expired. Because of his position he had clearances and access to information as do people who have been Senate confirmed. Have you ever held any type of security clearance? That is why you don't appoint just any ole lawyer who has no security clearance. Jack Smith had none but they were giving him access to information he had no right to access.

In the immortal words of Chief Clancy Wiggums, "Dig up, stupid"!

 

[dgordo]

Okay, agree then that when a bone is thrown out in an opinion like Thomas did, it is because they are truly saying hint,hint to lower courts.

Absolutely. Garland should reassign the case.

 

[Section25]

There was never anything close to justifying impeachment of Biden.

Trump ordered it to try and smear his opponent.

But I bet you already knew that.

Ole Mitch from Marion still stuck. Trump did not need to order anything. The deal for Hunter to absolve his tax problems made a painted picture of the Biden's much more clear than it already was. Do you think there are straight up honest senators and congress people who don't work the system?
Biden just kept taking more and got too greedy to not get his hand slapped. Once again, no party is impeaching the other when they have the votes.

 

[your_master5]

Feel free to explain why this special prosecutor was unconstitutional, but every other one was perfectly legit.

I literally already did. There is NO special counsel statute alive today. None. There is no constitutional right to appoint one without going through the Appointments Clause. 28 USC 600 was NEVER passed by Congress. Show me a federal statute that allows the special counsel. How about you do that.

 

[MitchLL]

Ole Mitch from Marion still stuck. Trump did not need to order anything. The deal for Hunter to absolve his tax problems made a painted picture of the Biden's much more clear than it already was. Do you think there are straight up honest senators and congress people who don't work the system?
Biden just kept taking more and got too greedy to not get his hand slapped. Once again, no party is impeaching the other when they have the votes.

Everything in your post is wrong.

Even the "Mitch from Marion".

Be better.

 

[your_master5]

Absolutely. Garland should reassign the case.

They already said they are appealing the decision.

 

[Joes Place]

? He hasn't been tried, how is double jeopardy applicable?

You'd think a lawyer would know the answer to this one....right?

 

[lucas80]

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.

Former federal prosecutor, UM law professor, and Lib TV law commentator said he can appeal, and if he chooses to move the case Northern NJ is more likely because the some of the crimes occurred at Bedminister.
Smith probably screwed up by being such a Boy Scout and filing in South Florida to begin with.

 

[lucas80]

Mueller was a private citizen as am I. As I stated, with clearances and him being vetted he can be voluntarily recalled to service to his country if he so desires to accept. He did not need re-vetted.

Fingers crossed that you don't have a gun to go with that badge.

 

[Joes Place]

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/01/clarence-thomas-jack-smith-special-counsel-immunity/

Clarence signaled how the SC will handle this, when it gets there.

 

[Joes Place]

The law didn't exist.

It does exist.

It is statute. Passed by Congress.

 

[Section25]

Everything in your post is wrong.

Even the "Mitch from Marion".

Be better.

Not wrong. The Mitch from Marion was a reference to another post about people who constantly tell people to be better, your wrong, your stupid with literally zero facts to back up anything you say.

 

[dgordo]

They already said they are appealing the decision.

I know, I think that is a mistake.

 

[Joes Place]

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.

The SC laws have been explicitly put in place to PROTECT people like Trump from a DOJ under the thumb of a President wanting to prosecute his political rivals. It requires someone OUTSIDE the scope of the DOJ to handle the case.

 

[Joes Place]

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.

That makes them, by definition, trivial.

It's established case law. But perhaps w/ a SC that will do whatever they need to, to protect Trump, they'll overturn this, too. Despite ample precedent that is 100% in favor of Smith winning.

 

[Section25]

Fingers crossed that you don't have a gun to go with that badge.

You guessed wrong...

 

[Joes Place]

If nothing else, I don’t think they can. This would be a horrible precedent to let stand.

So was "absolute immunity", when all they had to address was whether an outgoing President could try to overturn an election he lost...

 

[Joes Place]

Away with what? Jack smith illegally being appointed? Try him again the correct way. They won’t because it was BS through and through.

FUNFACT: If you disagree a SC should not have been appointed, then this green-lights DOJ to take on the case directly, with the influence of Garland AND Biden (and any "official act" by Biden is now fully immune from prosecution).

Based upon his mishandling and concealment of classified docs, Biden could now order Garland to jail him until trial.

This is why SC rules exist: to keep the POTUS from engaging in political prosecutions. Those guardrails now appear to be gone...

 

[Joes Place]

History says wrong. Do you believe the Attorney General can appoint a special counsel that has unlimited scope to investigate, prosecute and spend unlimited funds with zero oversight?

Uh...there's oversight.
Written into the SC statutes, Cletus

 

[Section25]

That makes them, by definition, trivial.

It's established case law. But perhaps w/ a SC that will do whatever they need to, to protect Trump, they'll overturn this, too. Despite ample precedent that is 100% in favor of Smith winning.

So then, Garland should have ignored Hur and prosecuted Biden as it would have been 100% in favor of prosecution.
There is no comeback of the situation was different or Biden cooperated. Doesn't matter in court as Biden was a Senator that removed documents only allowed to be viewed in the "safe" room. 100% slam dunk by your analysis.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, but there might actually be an issue with Smith appealing the case itself if he's not recognized as legitimate counsel for the government. It's a nuance, but if Cannon had not dismissed the case, but ruled Smith out, co-counsel could be allowed to continue the case AND appeal Smith being dismissed. I don't know enough about the federal rules and process, and this is novel.

The ONLY reason a SC was appointed was to distance Biden and Garland from the prosecution process. That's the role of the SC.

Now that Cannon has thrown that out, Garland should take the reins and let Biden, with his newly-established "immunity" take over.

 

[Joes Place]

Bob Mueller was the second longest FBI Director.

So? He was appointed SC the same way Smith was.

 

[Section25]

Uh...there's oversight.
Written into the SC statutes, Cletus

Not when there was no statutory authority to appoint.

 

[Joes Place]

Your interpretation is certainly different than Judge Cannon's.

And different than the statutes...

 

[Joes Place]

Not when there was no statutory authority to appoint.

There was statutory authority.