SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
aileen cannon
Trump-Appointed Judge Orders Biden DOJ to Conceal Jack Smith Report
"Delay is the name of the game here," said one legal analyst. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing."
Jan 07, 2025
Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida, ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to temporarily withhold from the American public special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigations into the president-elect, despite questions about her authority to do so.
Cannon's order came in response to a Monday request by President-elect Donald Trump's longtime valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, who are facing charges in a classified documents case brought by Smith. Trump was also charged in the classified documents probe, but Smith dropped the case against the Republican leader after he won the 2024 presidential election.
In their filing on Monday, Nauta and De Oliveira's attorneys called on Cannon to bar the release of Smith's final report, even though the classified documents case is currently before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta—not Cannon's court. The Justice Department is appealing Cannon's decision last summer to dismiss the classified documents case as the agency pursues charges against Nauta and De Oliveira.
Cannon wrote in her order Tuesday that Attorney General Merrick Garland, Smith, and other Justice Department employees are enjoined from "releasing, sharing, or transmitting" Smith's final report or "any drafts of such report" outside the DOJ. The judge said her order would remain in effect until the 11th Circuit rules on Nauta and De Oliveira's motion to prohibit the release of Smith's report.
Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said in an appearance on MSNBC that she doesn't believe Cannon has "any jurisdiction" over decisions surrounding Smith's report.
"But delay is the name of the game here," she added. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing and say, 'There's no report to disclose.' So that's the goal here."
Speaking to reporters Tuesday just ahead of Cannon's order, Trump claimed he didn't "know" the Florida judge—despite appointing her—but praised her as "brilliant."
Trump on Judge Cannon who he appointed: I don't know the judge in Florida, but we had a brilliant judge in Florida.. her opinion was so brilliant that they dropped the appeal pic.twitter.com/rjzsNANHyu
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2025
Smith said in a filing earlier Tuesday that his office is still "working to finalize" the report on his investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. By law, special counsels are required to submit a final report to the attorney general, who has the authority to decide whether to make the findings available to the public.
Smith said in his filing that he would not transmit his report to Garland before 1:00 pm on Tuesday, and that the attorney general would not release the findings before the morning of January 10—if at all. It's unclear how Cannon's order will impact Smith's timeline.
Trump's lawyers have demanded that Garland withhold Smith's report entirely, claiming in a letter to the attorney general on Monday that making it public would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
In their letter to Garland, Trump's attorneys—who have reviewed Smith's confidential report in recent days—revealed that the first volume of the document states that the president-elect "engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort" and was "the head of the criminal conspiracies" surrounding the 2020 election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jack Smith Drops Trump Case
The president-elect's "ability to escape prosecution does not retroactively validate his illegal, unconstitutional and democracy-destroying activities," said one critic.
Nov 25, 2024
Special Counsel Jack Smith's announcement on Monday that he was dropping his case regarding President-elect Donald Trump's alleged handling of classified documents and election subversion was not unexpected, as U.S. Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting president can't be prosecuted while in office.
But government watchdogs said the developing was no less "troubling," and vowed that Trump must ultimately face accountability.
"At least for now, Trump may escape justice for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election, fomenting the January 6 insurrection, and improperly handling classified documents," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. "But his ability to escape prosecution does not retroactively validate his illegal, unconstitutional and democracy-destroying activities. They were heinous and unconscionable acts that literally cost lives and threatened the peaceful transfer of power."
"If not the courts, history will judge them appropriately," said Gilbert.
In his motion to dismiss the case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Smith wrote that "the government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed. But the circumstances have."
" Donald Trump aims not just to excuse but to normalize all this behavior. Permitting him to succeed would enable a slide into authoritarianism. The American people must not let that happen."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in his Substack newsletter that regardless of DOJ policy, the filing was "a grave mistake," because Smith did not specify that the prosecution of Trump would be restarted after the president-elect leaves office.
"Smith says he had no choice," wrote Reich. "But he did have a choice. He could have asked the courts to put the cases on hold until Trump is no longer president... To be sure, Smith's requests were for dismissals 'without prejudice,' which technically leaves open the possibility that charges could be refiled after Trump leaves office. But refiling charges is vastly more cumbersome than simply ending a stay."
While Smith left the door open to once again bring charges against Trump in 2029, he "should have put the responsibility for avoiding the rule of law squarely on Trump," wrote Reich.
Legal analyst Barb McQuade added that Smith's tactic leaves the possibility that "there may be no appetite" to refile charges regarding eight-year-old allegations after Trump leaves office.
At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote that Attorney General Merrick Garland's "institutionalist instincts paralyzed the Justice Department for nearly two years, giving Trump a chance to run out the clock by the time Smith finally indicted him."
The attorney general is "partly at fault for waiting so long to commence the investigation into Jan. 6," they wrote, while right-wing federal Judge Aileen Cannon "is guilty of sabotaging" the case regarding Trump's retention of classified documents after he left office in 2021, which Cannon dismissed in July, claiming Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution.
"In a simplistic sense, the voting public also bears culpability for putting Trump back in the Oval Office despite his egregious attempts to steal the previous election. But that victory could not have happened without the Supreme Court, which essentially nullified the constitutional bar against insurrectionists returning to office, then awarded Trump sweeping immunity in Smith's Jan. 6 case. The court's immunity decision guaranteed that the former president would not face trial before the election, which in turn prevented the public from hearing the full range of evidence against him."
Gilbert emphasized that "at Public Citizen we believe that no one should be above the law, that criminality by the powerful must be punished, and that attempting to overturn the nation's election and fomenting political violence should be harshly sanctioned."
"Donald Trump aims not just to excuse but to normalize all this behavior," said Gilbert. "Permitting him to succeed would enable a slide into authoritarianism. The American people must not let that happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Utterly Unhinged': Trump-Appointed Judge Dismisses Classified Docs Case
"This is how republics collapse," one lawyer said, noting that even if the decision is reversed, it will likely delay "Trump's trial long enough to prevent any form of accountability before the November election."
Jul 15, 2024
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dismissed the criminal classified documents case against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee in a Monday decision denounced as politically motivated and "a punch in the mouth to the rule of law."
The Florida-based judge's dismissal came as the Republican National Convention kicked off in Milwaukee, Wisconsin after Trump survived an assassination attempt at a Saturday campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump is expected to formally accept the GOP's presidential nomination on Thursday.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel for a pair of federal probes after Trump announced the current presidential campaign in November 2022. Trump was finally indicted for his handling of classified documents the following June. He faces 40 charges in this case alone.
After Trump on Monday announced U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate and received enough delegate votes to secure the Republican nomination, a spokesperson for Smith confirmed that "the Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court's order."
"Unless the 11th Circuit and ultimately SCOTUS disagree, Trump goes free for walking out of the White House with top secret documents."
Cannon, in response to Trump's motion to dismiss, had agreed with the ex-president's defense team that "Smith's appointment violates the appointments clause of the United States Constitution" and dismissed the superseding indictment.
Cannon wrote that "both the appointments and appropriations challenges as framed in the motion raise the following threshold question: 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."
"None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment... 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," she continued. "Nor do the special counsel's strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise."
Cannon's decision could be reconsidered by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta or the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority that includes three Trump appointees. Journalists and legal experts on Monday framed the dismissal as just the latest move the judge has made to benefit the man who appointed her.
The Associated Presspointed out that Cannon previously "appointed an independent arbiter to inspect the classified documents recovered during the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, a decision that was overturned months later by a unanimous federal appeals panel," and "since then, she has been slow to issue rulings—favoring Trump's strategy of securing delays—and has entertained defense arguments that experts said other judges would have dismissed without hearings."
The New York Timesnoted that "Judge Cannon's ruling came exactly two weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas deeply questioned the constitutionality of Smith's appointment in an odd concurrence in the Supreme Court's landmark ruling granting Trump broad immunity against criminal prosecution," which stemmed from Smith's other case against Trump.
University of Alabama law professor and MSNBC legal commentator Joyce White Vance also highlighted how Cannon's decision—which she roundly criticized and called "absolutely incredible"—came after Thomas' concurrence.
"Unless the 11th Circuit and ultimately SCOTUS disagree, Trump goes free for walking out of the White House with top secret documents. At best, this is seriously delayed," said Vance, adding that she was "disgusted."
Congressman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said that "the dismissal of this case reflects a clear bias for the former president and the outlying opinion of the far-right wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
"To dismiss this case would be a miscarriage of justice," he added. "I urge Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith to appeal this egregious decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals."
As the Times reported: "The ruling rolls back nearly 30 years of how special counsels have gotten their jobs. Special counsels are governed by Justice Department regulations set through the statutory authority of the attorney general."
MSNBC host Chris Hayes accused Cannon of failing to do her job correctly by defying precedent and potentially hoping that the nation's highest court will uphold her decision.
"Just to be crystal clear: SCOTUS has upheld special counsels repeatedly. Cannon is a district court judge, her job is to apply controlling precedent," he explained. "She's doing this because she thinks the MAGA court is on the same page as her and Trump's lawyers and will go along."
Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid suggested that Cannon's timing was intentional, saying: "She saw the nonstop media coverage of the shooting, used that distraction to overturn decades of legal precedent without citing a single case in her ruling's favor, and dismissed Trump's classified documents case. This is how republics collapse."
"To be sure, Cannon's absurd ruling is so extreme that only one of the MAGA justices supported it in his immunity decision (Thomas). Her decision will likely be reversed because it has absolutely zero basis in precedent whatsoever. It is utterly unhinged," he added. "But Cannon's indefensible opinion still serves its purpose of delaying Trump's trial long enough to prevent any form of accountability before the November election. That was the move all along."
Damon Silvers, a visiting professor at University College London, said that "it's important to understand Judge Cannon's dismissal of the criminal case against Trump as both an attempt to grant him legal immunity AND an effort to escalate tensions in our country for political purposes. The right response is an appeal."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder also called for an appeal, saying in a statement that "this is a lawless, outlier decision with no basis in statute or case law. It is deeply dangerous for accountability and checks and balances going forward."
"This decision should and assuredly will be appealed immediately," he added. "It endangers the very concept of ensuring the most powerful people in government have to follow the law."
While fighting this case, Trump in May was convicted of 34 felonies in New York for the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. He faces two other cases—one overseen by Smith and another in Georgia—related to his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection.
This post has been updated with developments including Donald Trump's vice presidential selection and Jack Smith's appeal plans.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular