Southeast
Trump's classified docs case dismissal is a rebuke of Biden's out-of-control DOJ
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.
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
Read the full article from Here
Southeast
Former federal prosecutor in death row case speaks on Biden commuting murderer's sentence: 'My heart aches'
A former federal prosecutor in the case that sent a man to death row says it is difficult to see a “remorseless murderer” be relieved of his sentence following President Biden’s decision on Monday to commute nearly all federal inmates facing execution.
Brandon Council, of North Carolina, was sentenced to death by a federal jury on Oct. 3, 2019, after he was found guilty of killing two women who worked at a South Carolina bank during a robbery in 2017.
Council was one of the 37 convicted murderers who will now spend life in prison without parole after Biden reclassified their death sentences.
Derek Shoemake, former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina and one of the federal prosecutors in the case against Council, told Fox News Digital it was “one of the greatest professional honors” of his life to pursue justice for victims Donna Major, 59, and Kathryn Skeen, 36, and his heart aches for their families following Biden’s decision.
BIDEN COMMUTES SENTENCES OF 37 FEDERAL DEATH ROW INMATES IN FINAL MONTH OF PRESIDENCY
“Donna and Katie were amazing women, wonderful mothers, and beacons of light in their community. Today my thoughts and prayers are with their families, and my heart aches for them as they process this news,” Shoemake said in a statement.
He also said his thoughts and prayers are with the team who “worked for more than a year” getting justice for Major and Skeen, “ensuring a remorseless murderer received a sentence that spoke to the horrific nature of his senseless crimes.”
Council entered CresCom Bank in Conway, South Carolina, on Aug. 21, 2017, with the intention of robbing the business and killing its employees, according to a 2017 news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina (USAO-SC).
After making it inside, Council shot Major, who was the bank teller, multiple times with a revolver, the USAO-SC said at the time. He then ran into Skeen’s office, where she worked as the bank’s manager, and shot her multiple times while she hid under her desk.
Before fleeing the bank, he stole keys to both victims’ cars, their bank cards and more than $15,000 in cash. He took one of the vehicles to a motel he was staying at, packed his luggage and drove off.
FBI AGENT SAYS BANK ROBBERY SUSPECT BRANDON COUNCIL CONFESSED HE WOULD KILL
“It is difficult to see a sentence wiped away from 400 miles away after it was legally imposed by a jury of men and women from South Carolina who spent weeks listening to evidence, deliberating, and carefully deciding the appropriate punishment,” Shoemake said.
He also said it hurts that the victims’ families “will celebrate yet another Christmas without their loved ones,” while Council is among the 37 federally convicted murderers “celebrating a political victory.”
BIDEN’S DECISION TO COMMUTE SENTENCES FOR DEATH ROW INMATES SPARKS SOCIAL MEDIA FRENZY
Shoemake said his focus is not on the political debate surrounding Biden’s commutations, but on the “legacy of love, family, and faith” that Major and Skeen embodied.
“I pray for their families, as I so often do, and I pray for all the victims’ families impacted today,” he said.
In a White House statement announcing the commutations on Monday, Biden said he condemns the murderers and their “despicable acts,” and he grieves for the victims and families who have suffered “unimaginable and irreparable loss,” but he “cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”
Only three inmates remain on federal death row as Biden’s presidency nears its end. They are Tree of Life Synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof and Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Read the full article from Here
Southeast
Fani Willis' disqualification from Trump case has 'overwhelming' impact, legal expert says
George Washington University law professor Jonthan Turley said Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was “wrong” to bring the Georgia election interference case against President-elect Trump after a Georgia court disqualified Willis and her team from prosecuting the case on Thursday.
GEORGIA APPEAL COURT DISQUALIFIES DA FANI WILLIS AND HER TEAM FROM TRUMP ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE
JONATHAN TURLEY: The immediate impact of this decision is overwhelming in terms of Willis herself. I mean, this court is basically saying that these cases are not supposed to be sort of vanity projects. You know, you were told by the lower court that you created this appearance of impropriety and the question for the court is why you didn’t remove yourself. Many of us at the time said that most prosecutors would have seen that their continuation of the case was harming the case and harming the public interest. Willis simply refused to give up the ghost and insisted that she wanted to be the lead in this.
…
She was wrong to bring the case against Trump. You know, there are some viable claims here. You know, she charged some people with unlawful entry or access to restricted areas. Those are not particularly serious crimes, but they are crimes. She was wrong to go after Trump on this basis. She clearly wanted to engage in lawfare, and that’s one of the reasons why she wouldn’t give up the case. You know, when this issue was first raised, many of us wrote at the time that the correct move was to remove yourself. You selected a former lover as the lead counsel. That violated, in my view, core ethical requirements. He was ultimately disqualified by the court. But Judge McAfee gave her a chance to do the right thing. He said, look, this is your conduct is wrong here and you can remove yourself. Well, he was talking to the wrong person. She had no interest in removing herself. I mean, lawfare is only valuable if you’re the lead warrior, and she was not going to give up that position.
The court did not toss Trump’s indictment entirely, but Willis and the assistant DAs working in her office now have “no authority to proceed.”
“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the filing states. “The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Trump said the “whole case has been a disgrace to justice.”
“It was started by the Biden DOJ as an attack on his political opponent, Donald Trump,” he said, “They used anyone and anybody, and she has been disqualified, and her boyfriend has been disqualified, and they stole funds and went on trips.”
Trump said the case “should not be allowed to go any further.”
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Read the full article from Here
Southeast
Fani Willis' reputation 'damaged' after disqualification from Trump case: Georgia reporter
Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Greg Bluestein told MSNBC on Thursday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s reputation was “damaged” after a court disqualified her and her office from prosecuting President-elect Donald Trump in the election interference case against him.
“Her reputation is damaged, right? This was an unforced error as we said earlier, and, you know, this was all of her own doing, and now it unravels or might unravel one of the signature cases, not just of her career, but in Georgia. It leaves her damaged and it will be interesting to see what case she tries to make when she is expected to appeal this to the Georgia Supreme Court,” Bluestein told MSNBC’s Ana Caberra when asked about what was next for Willis.
The Georgia Court of Appeals on Thursday disqualified Willis and her team from prosecuting Trump and co-defendants in her election interference case. The court did not toss the indictment but declared that Willis and her team now have “no authority to proceed.”
Bluestein noted that Willis had just won re-election in Georgia and that it wasn’t a surprise because Fulton County is a Democratic stronghold.
FANI WILLIS FACES NOTHING BUT SETBACKS IN CASE AGAINST TRUMP, THE LATEST PENDING WITH SUPREME COURT
“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the filing states. “The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”
Bluestein said, “It is expected to be appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, but this is a really decisive order against Fani Willis being able to continue this case.”
Willis, who was spearheading the sweeping prosection case against Trump, came under fire after she was accused in February of having an “improper” affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to help prosecute the case.
Wade was ultimately forced to step down from the prosecution team.
JUDGE RULES FANI WILLIS MUST STEP ASIDE FROM TRUMP CASE OR FIRE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Trump said the “whole case has been a disgrace to justice.”
Trump additionally said that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.”
Catherine Christian, a former assistant Manhattan district attorney, also weighed in on the disqualification on MSNBC.
“But usually appellate courts defer to the lower court, the trial judge, who fashioned a remedy. He said Nathan Wade, the man she was having an affair with, had to leave so the office could stay, and this court has said, nope. This court said that Judge MacAfee did not really appreciate that her decision-making wasn’t just the indictment. It was who to charge, how to charge it, and that’s at the time when this alleged romantic relationship was going on, and they said that also was one of the reasons why they think it’s more than an appearance of impropriety. It’s a conflict of interest, and not just her, the entire office is disqualified,” Christian said.
Fox News Digital reached out to Fani Willis’ office for comment.
Read the full article from Here
-
Business1 week ago
Freddie Freeman's World Series walk-off grand slam baseball sells at auction for $1.56 million
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta’s Instagram boss: who posted something matters more in the AI age
-
News1 week ago
East’s wintry mix could make travel dicey. And yes, that was a tornado in Calif.
-
Technology3 days ago
Google’s counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
-
Politics4 days ago
Illegal immigrant sexually abused child in the U.S. after being removed from the country five times
-
News4 days ago
Novo Nordisk shares tumble as weight-loss drug trial data disappoints
-
Entertainment5 days ago
'It's a little holiday gift': Inside the Weeknd's free Santa Monica show for his biggest fans
-
Politics1 week ago
Supreme Court may free Catholic charities from paying state unemployment taxes for their employees