Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump

Occam's Banana

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
39,964
[Trump indictments: index of threads]
re: criminal indictment #2: classified documents @ Mar-a-Lago

PDF file: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump
Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. Her decision is sure to be appealed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/us/politics/trump-document-case-dismissed.html
[archive: https://archive.ph/AdzYI]
{Alan Feuer | 15 July 2024}

A federal judge dismissed in its entirety the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump on Monday, ruling that the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution.

In a stunning ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, found that because Mr. Smith had not been named to the post of special counsel by the president or confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution.

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was put on the bench by Mr. Trump, flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back to the Watergate era that upheld the legality of the ways in which independent prosecutors have been named. And in a single swoop, it removed a major legal threat against Mr. Trump on the first day of the Republican National Convention, where he is set to formally become the party’s nominee for president.

Mr. Smith’s team will almost certainly appeal the ruling by Judge Cannon throwing out the classified documents indictment, which charges Mr. Trump with illegally holding onto a trove of highly sensitive state secrets after he left office and then obstructing the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them.
 
Last edited:
28k18l.jpg
 
I believe this was a constituionally correct ruling. That doesn't mean Trump didn't do what he was accused of, I think he did.
 
As long as a former president isn't selling/giving classified information to political/industrial friends, this charge is ridiculous.

Who, if not the president, should be trusted with classified information?
 
I believe this was a constituionally correct ruling. That doesn't mean Trump didn't do what he was accused of, I think he did.

They all do it.

Trump is the only one who was charged & prosecuted for it.
 

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1812850437948657898
to: https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1812857969039601990
{Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley | 15 July 2024}

The dismissal of the classified documents case is a seismic development. From the beginning of all of these cases, I have said that the Mar-a-Lago case was the greatest threat to the former president. It is now dismissed.

...This was the three-point shot for Trump. The easier basket was the D.C. case despite a far more favorable judge for Jack Smith. That case is inundated with presumptively privileged evidence and challenged charges...

...Judge Cannon's decision mirrors the views of many leading lawyers who see the same constitutional flaw that led Justice Clarence Thomas to expressly raise his issue in his recent opinion...

...There are good faith arguments on both sides of this question but even critics must acknowledge that anomaly of having a constitutionally mandated confirmation process for U.S. Attorneys but then allow an ad hoc system of unilateral appointments for special counsels ...

...This opinion is still an outlier among the courts that have reviewed the question. Other courts have given short shrift to the issue. Judge Cannon was criticized for giving this challenge a full opportunity for briefing and argument in her court.

...The decision is another example of how Smith misplayed his hand in piling on charges in Flordia. If he had simply gone forward with the obstruction charge, he could have had a trial before the election...

...Of all of the cases that Trump would want to see dismissed from the Trump perspective, this is the one. For Trump's perspective, this has always been lawfare and this is the second close miss in a week by his enemies. Whether the Florida case was lawfare or legitimate, Smith overloaded the case with charges that slowed it down and made it even more vulnerable to challenges.

...We will have to see how Smith will now respond from an appeal to the possible refiling by a confirmed U.S. Attorney. Historically, he has not gone quietly into the night when faced with legal obstacles...

...Cannon finds both unconstitutional elements in the appointment by Garland and the appropriations given to Smith -- all without the consent of Congress...

..."“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law."
 
As long as a former president isn't selling/giving classified information to political/industrial friends, this charge is ridiculous.

Not when you realize that the documents he took (whether classified or not) didn't belong to him but rather belonged to the National Archives and also when you realize that even after the Archives requested the return of the document he (a) stonewalled for 9 months before returning some of them; (b) after being subpoenaed to return the rest of them he returned some of the remaining ones and had his attorney falsely claim that a "diligent search" had been made and all the rest had been returned, after which the search warrant was executed and the FBI found more than 100 documents with classification markings; (c) the FBI discovered these in a matter of hours, over twice the number of documents with classification markings that Trump’s people had weeks to discover and deliver in connection with their so-called "diligent search"; and (d) he showed a document to four other people (none of whom had security clearances) and said, "Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this...See as President I could have declassified it...Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

Who, if not the president, should be trusted with classified information?

The President must be trusted, since having access to such info is a necessary part of his job. Ex-presidents, however, have no similar need for such info. And would you really want to trust someone who's $400+ million in debt to have such info that might be sold to some bad guys overseas?
 
Not when you realize that the documents he took (whether classified or not) didn't belong to him but rather belonged to the National Archives and also when you realize that even after the Archives requested the return of the document he (a) stonewalled for 9 months before returning some of them; (b) after being subpoenaed to return the rest of them he returned some of the remaining ones and had his attorney falsely claim that a "diligent search" had been made and all the rest had been returned, after which the search warrant was executed and the FBI found more than 100 documents with classification markings; (c) the FBI discovered these in a matter of hours, over twice the number of documents with classification markings that Trump’s people had weeks to discover and deliver in connection with their so-called "diligent search"; and (d) he showed a document to four other people (none of whom had security clearances) and said, "Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this...See as President I could have declassified it...Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

Why doesn't the National Archives buy a copy machine?
 
It is not illegal if the President does it.

Every single one of them have gotten away with it.

So, why do you hate 'murika?

Got news for you, chump: Trump isn't the President, and he wasn't when he refused to return the stuff he took.

How many of the other ex-Presidents had to have a subpoena served on them to return documents? How many lied about having returned everything, thereby precipitating a search warrant the execution of which uncovered a lot more documents?
 
Got news for you, chump: Trump isn't the President, and he wasn't when he refused to return the stuff he took.

How many of the other ex-Presidents had to have a subpoena served on them to return documents? How many lied about having returned everything, thereby precipitating a search warrant the execution of which uncovered a lot more documents?

You are easy to troll.
 
Back
Top