Connect with us

Southeast

Classified docs case dismissal means ‘greatest' legal 'threat’ to Trump is ‘gone’: experts

Published

on

A Florida judge dismissed the case against former President Trump for the handling of classified documents, and some legal experts are calling it a “strongly reasoned” opinion that eliminates the “greatest legal threat” to the presumptive 2024 GOP just ahead of the Republican National Convention. 

On Monday, Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a 93-page opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to oversee the case was unconstitutional. 

“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,” Cannon wrote. 

Jonathan Turley, a defense attorney and law professor at George Washington University, told Fox News Monday that “of all of the cases that could be dismissed, this would be at the top of the list. This was the greatest threat. And for now, at least, it’s gone.”

SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP CASE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FORMER REAGAN AG SAYS

Advertisement

Special Counsel Jack Smith arrives to give remarks on a recently unsealed indictment including four felony counts against former U.S. President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023 in Washington, DC.  (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Trump had faced charges stemming from special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into his possession of classified materials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. He pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony counts from Smith’s probe, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements

John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor and director of the Ed Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said that the case brought by Smith was the “most serious of the four criminal cases that were filed against him.” 

A representative for Smith did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment and whether the Justice Department plans to appeal the decision. 

JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S FLORIDA CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE

Advertisement
Image shows Donald Trump, Mar-a-Lago and federal affidavit

Former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida was searched by the FBI in 2022. (Getty Images)

John Yoo, a constitutional attorney, told Fox News Digital that the question of the constitutionality of special counsel has been debated for over 20 years. “We’ve been thinking and talking about this, these people who specialize in the Appointments Clause. The courts have generally been deferential to the Justice Department and how they want to appoint different lawyers.” 

“But I think because of how aggressive Jack Smith has been, he prompted close scrutiny from the courts,” said Yoo. 

Ed Meese, the former Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, filed a number of amicus briefs in Jack Smith’s cases against Trump arguing that Smith is “improperly appointed” and  “has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.” 

While Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment, Meese argued that “none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”

“Second, even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel,” the former AG wrote. 

Advertisement
U.S. President Donald Trump awards the National Medal of Freedom to former Attorney General Edwin Meese during a ceremony in the Oval Office at the White House October 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. 

U.S. President Donald Trump awards the National Medal of Freedom to former Attorney General Edwin Meese during a ceremony in the Oval Office at the White House October 08, 2019 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Meese said “We are very glad that the court moved to emphasize the importance of the Constitution in making sure that the special counsel’s appointment constitutional standards.”

“I congratulate Judge Cannon for her courage and constitutional ability,” he said. 

Yoo said Cannon’s decision is “a very thorough, strongly reasoned, persuasive opinion [that] goes through the history of special counsels and all the statutes that are involved.”

“This decision is very well-reasoned and very well-written,” said John Shu, a constitutional attorney who served in both Bush administrations. “It’s not surprising because Congress intentionally allowed the independent counsel statute, which the Supreme Court found constitutional, to lapse, and they never replaced or amended it.”
 
“And thus Congress, through it’s inaction, just allowed the regulatory agency, in this case the DOJ, to go ahead and promulgate its own regulations in place of an actual enabling statute,” he explained.

LUNA’S BID TO FORCE GARLAND TO HAND OVER BIDEN-HUR TAPES FAILS IN HOUSE

Advertisement
Trump Bronx Rally

Former President Donald Trump holds a rally in the historically Democratic South Bronx on May 23, 2024 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

 Monday’s decision is the latest in a string of legal victories for the former president. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that he and future presidents are granted limited immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. That decision directly impacted Smith’s separate case against Trump related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. 

In a separate concurrence to the immunity decision, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure” – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel. 

“In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,’” Thomas wrote. 

“Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas said, adding that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States.” 

Advertisement

“But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” he said. 

Should the Justice Department appeal Cannon’s decision, the Supreme Court could eventually be petitioned to weigh in on the matter. 

“All of these cases seem to be collapsing of their own weight, and it’s because of lawfare,” said Jim Trusty, a former federal prosector and former lawyer for President Trump. 

“This is the price of lawfare when you create different crimes and different investigative approaches, and you do it all in the name of self-righteousness that Donald Trump needs to be stopped, which is really the philosophy behind all these prosecutions.”  

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Southeast

Pickup truck collides with horse-drawn buggy in Virginia, killing 1 and wounding 6

Published

on

  • A pickup truck collided with a horse-drawn buggy in the Farmville area of Cumberland County, Virginia, about 50 miles west of Richmond.
  • One person was killed and six others were injured in the crash.
  • The driver of the pickup was not injured, and the crash is under investigation.

One person was killed and six others injured when a pickup truck collided with the horse-drawn buggy they were traveling in, Virginia State Police said.

The crash happened just before 7 p.m. Sunday in the 2700 block of Cumberland Road in the Farmville area of Cumberland County, police said in a news release. The area is about 50 miles west of Richmond.

‘MIRACLE’ DOG FOUND ALIVE IN UNDERGROUND VIRGINIA CAVE

One person was killed and six others were injured when a pickup truck and a horse-drawn buggy collided in Cumberland County, Virginia.

Seven people were on board the buggy at the time of the crash. One died on the scene and the other six were taken to a hospital with injuries that ranged from serious to life-threatening, police said. The driver of the pickup was not injured.

The crash was under investigation, police said.

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

Southeast

Jonathan Turley reacts to 'seismic' dismissal of Trump classified documents case: 'Huge win'

Published

on

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley joined “America’s Newsroom” Monday after a judge in Florida dismissed the case against former President Trump’s handling of classified documents.

TRUMP VIP RALLY ATTENDEE SHARES WHAT HE EXPERIENCED DURING THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

JONATHAN TURLEY: This is a seismic decision because the immunity decision that was issued by the Supreme Court was the second of a 1-2 punch for Jack Smith. Previously, the court had reversed an obstruction charge that impacted Trump as well. And so those two cases here ripped the wings off his case. So we were all looking to see how Jack Smith would handle it in D.C. He had a very motivated and favorable judge, Judge Chutkan. And she has really been an ideal choice for Jack Smith. So the assumption was that Judge Chutkan would do her level best to keep that case going even after these hits. Few people expected the Florida case to be the one that disassembled first. Well, what Judge Cannon is saying here is essentially, look, there’s this weird anomaly in the Constitution, we have a process of which U.S. attorneys are nominated, and they are then confirmed by the Senate. And yet the attorney general can just go on to any street in D.C. and pick any person and make them a special counsel with greater authority than the U.S. attorney. And that’s what she’s trying to get at here, saying, where is the footprint for this in the Constitution? Where is the authority to create Jack Smith within the first three articles of the Constitution? So it’s a huge win for Trump. Other courts have really dismissed this claim with very little briefing. And so this will create a conflict. There are good arguments on both sides here. But, you couldn’t have more favorable news for Donald Trump because I’ve said it from the beginning, the Florida case was by far the greatest threat to Donald Trump. The New York case, the Manhattan case, in my view, has layers of reversible error. It’s going to be in the courts for a while I think. Judge Merchan did a particularly poor job in that case, and I don’t even see the viable crime in that case. But putting that aside, Florida was the greatest challenge.

Trump had faced charges stemming from special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into his possession of classified materials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. He pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony counts from Smith’s probe, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements.

“Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order,” U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in a Monday ruling. “The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Advertisement

Fox News’ Greg Norman contributed to this report

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Southeast

Trump's classified docs case dismissal is a rebuke of Biden's out-of-control DOJ

Published

on

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It never made sense or seemed right.  With the wave of a wand, a private citizen was granted unlimited power to prosecute a former president of the United States.  

Advertisement

In a tectonic opinion issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional.  As a consequence, she correctly dismissed the Florida criminal indictment of Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents.

Smith and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will likely file an immediate appeal to a higher court.  But Cannon’s well-reasoned 93-page opinion establishes a clarifying record of sound legal judgment that will be difficult to overcome.  At some point, the U.S. Supreme Court may be forced to intervene.       

JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S FLORIDA CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE

At the heart of the federal judge’s decision is the Appointments Clause of the Constitution which provides the exclusive means for selecting all “Officers of the United States.”  They must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.  Smith failed both requirements.  

Instead, he was anointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, without legitimate statutory authority.  His unilateral act commandeered the legislative right of Congress that animates and preserves our revered separation of powers.

Advertisement

Cannon concluded, “The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers.  That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere —whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not.” (Opinion, page 91)  

TALE OF TWO CONVENTIONS: GOP UNITED BEHIND TRUMP WHILE DEMS IN DISARRAY

In two seminal cases, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that the Appointments Clause is “more than a matter of ‘etiquette or protocol’; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” (Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651; Buckley vs. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1)

In naming Smith to his almighty position, Garland relied mainly on internal regulations devised by the DOJ that deliberately circumvented Congress.  Tradition and “historical practice,” he argued, justified his maneuver.  

However, that was a clever misrepresentation of inconsistent history.  While it is true that other special counsels have operated without specific legislative consent —Patrick Fitzgerald, Robert Mueller, John Durham, David Weiss, and Robert Hur— all of them had been presidentially appointed and Senate approved in prior positions as officers of the United States.  Smith never was.

Advertisement

Belatedly, and in opposition to Trump’s motion to dismiss the case against him, Garland and Smith cited a handful of statutes that purported to rationalize the appointment.  But Judge Cannon methodically disassembled them as wholly inapplicable to a special counsel who was given nearly unfettered authority to do as he pleases.      

CLASSIFIED DOCS CASE DISMISSAL MEANS ‘GREATEST’ LEGAL ‘THREAT’ TO TRUMP IS ‘GONE’: EXPERTS

What concerned Cannon was how Garland’s selection of Smith “imposed almost no supervision or direction over the special counsel and gave him broad power to render final decisions on behalf of the United States.” (Opinion, page 72)   

How is it possible that an attorney general could vest in a private citizen the immense and unchecked power of a U.S. Attorney when, in fact, Smith is not and never was?  His role is not to assist an approved U.S. Attorney but replace one entirely.  

By evading constitutional restrictions, Garland single-handedly stripped Congress of its vital role of Senate approval.  Judge Aileen Cannon remedied this mistake.  In doing so, she built on the compelling contentions of two former Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, who filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief.  Their persuasive arguments can be seen writ large throughout the opinion.  

Advertisement

Cannon also expressed alarm at the $12 million already spent by Smith and where exactly the money came from.  The expenses were not doled out by Congress, which means that both Garland and the special counsel violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution in much the same way that his assignation was unlawful abuse of the Appointments Clause.   

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

If the decision dismissing the prosecution of Trump ever reaches the nation’s highest court, it will meet at least one justice who had already questioned the legitimacy of the special counsel.  Justice Clarence Thomas expressed serious misgivings during the recent presidential immunity case.  Indeed, Cannon cited it in her lengthy opinion. 

Regardless, the current ruling makes it effectively impossible for Smith’s Florida classified documents case from reaching trial before the presidential election in November or even the inauguration should Trump prevail at the ballot box.  

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon. (US Courts) (US Courts )

Advertisement

The judge did not address the merits of the indictment, which had troubling aspects of prosecutorial overreach in the stacking of charges that seemed weaker by the dozen. 

Cannon’s ruling is not binding on the federal judge in Smith’s other case against Trump in Washington, D.C. over alleged election-interference.  But that prosecution is already stalled by the two recent Supreme Court decisions over the immunity issue and the improper use of an obstruction statute.  

Nevertheless, Justice Thomas’ observation that Smith is acting without authority may breathe new life into Trump’s long-term defense in the January 6th case against him.

The erosion of Jack Smith’s misbegotten prosecutions represents an important course correction in the increasingly abusive tactics employed by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department and his sycophantic attorney general.  These cases, as well as those brought by local district attorneys in New York and Georgia, were always politically driven and legally anemic persecutions designed to delegitimize Trump’s electoral chances.  

Advertisement

They have boomeranged spectacularly.

It is a reminder of what the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, once said, “It is never the law itself that is in the wrong; it is always some wicked interpreter of the law that has corrupted and abused it.” 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending