Newsline

Newsline , Society

Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Documents Case, Says Jack Smith Unlawfully Appointed

Posted on Monday, July 15, 2024
|
by Outside Contributor
|
41 Comments
|
Print

Former President Donald Trump (L); U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (C); Special counsel Jack Smith (R).

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case on July 15, finding that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause.

“The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” the order reads.

The 93-page opinion and order was issued after days of oral arguments over the special counsel’s appointment and the statutory authority the Justice Department argued Attorney General Merrick Garland used to appoint Mr. Smith.

The dismissal of the indictment also dismisses the cases of codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. All scheduled hearings and deadlines have been canceled. Restrictions on sealed and classified information in the case remain in place.

Prosecutors are expected to appeal the order.

Appointments Clause

The Appointments Clause stipulates that officers must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It identifies a difference between courts later deemed “principal” versus “inferior” officers and states that department heads may appoint inferior officers if Congress has passed legislation allowing them to do so.

This is a “critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers,” the judge wrote, and Mr. Smith’s appointment “effectively usurps that important legislative authority.”

The defense had argued that Mr. Smith had the powers of a principal officer and had not gone through such an appointment process.

Prosecutors argued Mr. Smith was an inferior officer and that the attorney general had the statutory authority to appoint a special counsel, relying on several different statutes naming independent counsel, special attorneys, and other similar positions, but not a “special counsel statute,” as the judge noted in a hearing.

Judge Cannon accepted the prosecutors’ view that the special counsel is an “inferior Officer” but found that there was no statutory authority allowing the head of the Justice Department to appoint such inferior officers.

“Is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no,” the judge wrote.

The judge found that Congress has passed laws allowing the president to nominate an attorney general, deputy attorney general, associate attorney general, solicitor general, assistant attorney general, and each time uses language in line with the Appointments Clause.

U.S. Attorneys also go through the nomination and confirmation process, and some third party amicus experts had argued that if the attorney general had selected a confirmed U.S. Attorney for the position of special counsel, defendants could not have brought such a motion.

Prosecutors had pointed to statutes concerning the attorney general, FBI, U.S. Attorneys, Marshals, trustees, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and some concerning the expired Independent Counsel office.

“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533—gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith.”

Historic Practice

The judge found the prosecutors’ arguments “strained” and relied on “inconsistent history.”

Prosecutors had argued that the attorney general has historically held the authority to appoint special counsel,  and the judge found the historical examples presented by the special counsel were not comparable. Some of the historic special counsels had been appointed with a confirmation, some not; some were appointed by a president, and some not. Protocols for firing special counsel also varied.

But the practice of appointing “private citizens like Mr. Smith—as opposed to already-retained federal employees—appears much closer to the exception than the rule,” the judge found, as it has only been used in recent years, such as in the case of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Judge Cannon wrote that many of these historic examples were also attorneys who did not have as much power as Mr. Smith’s office.

The judge found the lack of special counsel legislation to be the most important factor.

“Congress—historically, and in the present moment—has shown that it knows how to create offices for special counsels. In 1924, Congress did so in response to the Teapot Dome scandal,” the opinion reads. “In 1978, Congress passed the much-discussed (and now-defunct) Independent Counsel Act.”

Finding that independent counsel—the closest comparison to the special counsel office—had too much independence, Congress let the law expire in 1999.

The parties had also argued over whether the special counsel’s office was properly funded, and the judge found that no ruling on the matter was necessary in light of her decision to dismiss the case.

“Dismissal of this action is the only appropriate solution for the Appointments Clause violation,” the order reads.

Jan. 6 Case

This dismissal will not affect the second case that Mr. Smith is prosecuting against former President Trump in the District of Columbia.

In 2018, District of Columbia District Court Judge Beryl Howell ruled in that district that special counsel Robert Mueller was lawfully appointed, and the decision was upheld on appeal in 2019.

The circuit court decision would allow Mr. Smith to continue wielding prosecutorial authority in that jurisdiction, unless the Florida case dismissal is appealed to the Supreme Court.

Catherine Yang is a reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York.

Reprinted with Permission from The Epoch Times – By Catherine Yang

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.

Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
41 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom
Tom
2 months ago

Great a Judge which can read and think. Love to see hope.
FYI The kid which did the shooting as defined by the talking heads did not have the thoughts to do this on his own. So who mentored him? Who pushed Smith? We must pull back the curtains back and see the devil him or herself! Push on!!
Betting his parents work in the goverment school system or Psychology Departments his actions seem to have no exit plan or 5 minutes ahead thought. Thank God
Let me tell you what I learned in Vietnam 1) Never give up 2) Never have any quit 3) Never belive a thing they tell you 4) Use your head for more than a hat rack 5) If your have any doubts see item one
Proud to be a deplorable, thinking, common sense, American (MAGA)

Jeff
Jeff
2 months ago

How do the US taxpayers get their wasted money back?

Edgar
Edgar
2 months ago

Hallelujah to OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST for the Victory of the phony Indictment against Donald J Trump .

Lawrence Greenberg
Lawrence Greenberg
2 months ago

The fact that Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional was stated very clearly not just by Justice Thomas, but by numerous constitutional experts as long as three or even more months ago. Why did it take until now for the judge to do this?

John
John
2 months ago

The anti American leftist working for the American Communist/ Fascist parties of America have been using law fare to suppress with court action, anyone that opposes their grab for power and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic.

Richard A.
Richard A.
2 months ago

Jack Smith CAN’T follow the LAW and should lose his Law license. American’s also want our MONEY back from all involved! If they have to SELL boats, cars/trucks, houses, plains and trains…..WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK! We need a class-action lawsuit.

Jack Sparrow
Jack Sparrow
2 months ago

How much U.S. taxpayer funds did Jack Smith waste to waylay his opposition’s presidential candidate? Karma has no time limit, Jack!

anna hubert
anna hubert
2 months ago

This comes as close to a miracle as it’s possible There really is a law?

Leslie
Leslie
2 months ago

Now Merchan will sentence him to jail time just to keep Trump off the campaign trail. Just watch. They never stop. I wonder how the Dems are going to claim the election was rigged when Trump wins in November.

Rick
Rick
2 months ago

About time real justice is being served.

Robert Zuccaro
Robert Zuccaro
2 months ago

Like Cartman says: “ha-ha. ha-ha-ha”

Tplorable
Tplorable
2 months ago

All the ridiculous charges, indictments and phony trials should be dropped and all the people involved thrown in prison. What is wrong with these people. If you don’t like the other candidate, then don’t vote for him. Our justice system has been compromised and I have no faith in it. It’s really a shame. I feel nieve about everything I believed growing up.

John Warren
John Warren
2 months ago

Not only should Jack Smith be presecuted and jailed, but the person who appointed him must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

SCbubba
SCbubba
2 months ago

Chalk up yet another “win” for President Trump! Anytime the DemocRATS and their ilk LOSE, it’s good for America!

Diane
Diane
2 months ago

Judge Cannon has acted with integrity, which makes her not only a hero but a target. Er must pray for her protection.

Irma
Irma
2 months ago

What is this about Biden (and his administration) pushing Supreme Court term limits? Heard this on Fox News. If this happens, our democracy will be destroyed!! Hope dems break away from a party that wants to make them slaves to extreme ideology. Love the RNC message!!

ArtBob
ArtBob
2 months ago

Judge Aileen Cannon? A heroic defender of democracy! Though, I doubt the Biden Campaign will enlist her to their “struggle.”

Myrna
Myrna
2 months ago

I am so glad the combination of decisions has been clarified. Thank you.

Jay H.
Jay H.
2 months ago

I don’t understand how biden can remove classified documents as a senator & vice president which is a crime, however, biden doesn’t get arrested? Both clinton and obummer also took classified documents & that wasn’t a problem. Nevermind, I forgot that they’re all democrats, they are above the law.

johnh
johnh
2 months ago

Congress needs to clarify or solidify the regulations for classified documents. This ruling means that anyone can take classified docs when they leave office, and they will not be held liable for this. Remember WWII “Loose Lips Sink Ships”. What is happening to the judges and Judicial Branch in the USA at the current time. We need to start enforcing the laws that we have to protect honest citizens.

Randall L. Beatty
Randall L. Beatty
2 months ago

About time there was someone that is with the law all the others appointed are just Trump haters at least this judge is fair and knows the law time for all this BS to be overturned just a bunch if liars.

Stephen Russell
Stephen Russell
2 months ago

Victory

Justitia
Justitia
2 months ago

Yay! Great win for the MAGA cause!! This case was dismissed on the technicality of the appointment of Jack Smith and not on the merit of the charges. I sure hope this can be argued in the DC case against Trump as well.

Except
Except
2 months ago

Like oh my god this law stuff is easier then I thought. Hey did you know Washington was a president?
aileen “Bimbo” cannon

CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris exposed for interview editing
Your voice your vote
torn and tattered american flag
Cormorants are sunbathing

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

41
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games