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.”

Fox News’ Greg Norman contributed to this report

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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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

An elections board in North Carolina has once again deferred granting certification to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Cornel West, citing concerns over how their nominating signatures were obtained.

Members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections claimed at a Tuesday hearing that during several probing phone calls to voters registered with the two candidates’ parties, some signers did not know they had been nominating Kennedy or West.

Board personnel reached out to 26 voters who signed petitions for Kennedy’s We The People party and 66 who signed for West’s Justice for All party. It is not clear how many of those contacted are alleged to have been confused about the purpose of their signatures.

RFK JR DENOUNCES ‘SPOILER’ LABEL, REJECTS DEM PARTY LOYALTY CONCERNS: ‘I’M TRYING TO HURT BOTH’ CANDIDATES

General counsel Lindsey Wakely said 12 signers of the Justice for All petition did not remember signing the petition.

Every individual contacted from the We the People party petition reportedly remembered signing their name, according to local outlet Port City Daily.

State election officials previously confirmed that the We the People party submitted more than the 13,865 valid signatures necessary to register as a political party ahead of the 2024 election. The Justice for All party similarly turned in more than the minimum number of signatures necessary.

DEM CAMPAIGN CALL REVEALS PANIC MODE OVER RFK JR.’S WHITE HOUSE BID, SCRAMBLE TO SAVE BIDEN RE-ELECTION HOPES

Presidential candidate Dr. Cornel West is seen speaking to the press following a rally in Harlem, New York City. (Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Debate has erupted in the state over whether opposition to Kennedy and West’s names on the ballot is based on legitimate ethical concerns or political gamesmanship to protect President Biden from third party candidates.

Republican member of the election board Kevin Lewis reportedly expressed frustration with the continued obstacles to Kennedy and West, questioning the motives of his Democrat colleagues.

“You know how I voted the last time and I hope fellow board members will do the right thing and approve these partners today,” Lewis said, according to Port City News.

President Biden and former President Trump participate in the CNN Presidential Debate in Atlanta. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Kennedy has repeatedly denied accusations that he is running as a spoiler against Biden, claiming that he is “trying to hurt both” the president and his opponent, former President Trump.