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
'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
The Right-Wing Judge Who Could Tank the Most Slam-Dunk Case Against Trump
District Court Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon was confirmed by the Senate on November 12, 2020, nine days after Trump lost the presidential election, despite having only four minor jury trials on her resume as a practicing attorney.
Aug 31, 2023
Amid all the excitement generated by the indictments against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., and in Fulton County, Georgia, for election subversion, it’s easy to lose sight of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, which is set for trial next May. But of all Trump’s legal woes, that case is the only one that looks like a slam dunk.
Trump stands accused of committing 40 felonies for absconding from the White House with a trove of classified and top-secret papers, stashing them at his Palm Beach golf resort, and refusing to return them to the federal government on demand. Two other defendants—Walt Nauta, Trump’s longtime valet; and Carlos de Oliveira, the resort’s property manager—are accused of committing some crimes jointly with Trump and others on their own.
Unfortunately, there is one big problem facing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team in the Sunshine State: The trial will be presided over by District Court Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon, who may just be in the metaphorical tank for the former President.
Given the broad authority of federal trial judges and her obvious pro-Trump bias, Cannon will be uniquely positioned to help the ex-President as the case unfolds.
Cannon, who was born in Colombia and grew up in Miami, was nominated by Trump in May 2020 to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She was 39-years-old, relatively young by federal judicial standards.
Cannon was confirmed by the Senate on November 12, 2020, nine days after Trump lost the presidential election, despite having only four minor jury trials on her resume as a practicing attorney. Her scant record as a published author at the time of her nomination included a series of human-interest pieces she wrote as an undergraduate for El Nuevo Herald, a Miami-based Spanish-language daily newspaper. Among the topics she covered were prenatal yoga, the health benefits of tomatoes, and flamenco dance.
By all appearances, Cannon grew more serious in law school at the University of Michigan, joining the Federalist Society and establishing herself as a staunch conservative. She served as an assistant U.S. attorney in southern Florida from 2013 to 2020, and in that capacity, caught the eye of the Trump Administration as a worthy candidate to add to the growing cadre of right-wing judges the ex-President had appointed.
Once enrobed, Cannon was assigned to a courtroom in Fort Pierce, north of West Palm Beach. Under normal circumstances, she would have remained under the radar for years, handling a challenging but standard docket of civil and criminal litigation. The FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, changed that trajectory in a flash.
Cannon was assigned to hear a highly unusual civil lawsuit Trump’s lawyers filed on August 22, seeking an emergency protective order to block the government from indicting Trump until the propriety of the search could be reviewed by an independent arbiter known as a “special master.” Suddenly, she found herself in the national spotlight.
To the shock and dismay of many legal observers, Cannon ruled quickly in Trump’s favor, issuing an order on September 5, appointing a special master, and reasoning that Trump was entitled to be treated differently than other criminal suspects in order to avoid the “reputational harm” that could have resulted from a hasty indictment. “As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States,” Cannon wrote, “the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.”
At the Special Counsel’s request, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly intervened and rebuked Cannon in a stinging reversal, holding:
The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our case law limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
Incredibly, now that Trump has actually been indicted, Cannon is once again presiding, apparently impervious to demands that she recuse herself due to the appearance of bias. According to the district-court clerk, she was randomly selected to act as the trial judge from a total pool of seven active judges.
Given the broad authority of federal trial judges and her obvious pro-Trump bias, Cannon will be uniquely positioned to help the ex-President as the case unfolds. She will rule on all pretrial motions, including any motions to suppress the documents on Fourth Amendment grounds, as well as any that seek to dismiss the indictment for selective prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct. She will also have the last word on the admissibility of evidence at trial.
Cannon’s greatest impact, however, may be on jury selection. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, the prosecution will only have six peremptory jury challenges, allowing it to automatically exclude potential jurors it believes will be unfair. After that, the prosecution will be limited to challenges for cause (such as implied or actual bias), which Cannon will have the sole power to grant or deny. It will only take one rogue juror who holds out for acquittal regardless of the evidence to spare Trump.
Even if Cannon were not biased herself, there is good reason to doubt her ability to supervise the high-profile selection of Trump’s jury. In a recent criminal case, according to a transcript obtained by Reuters, she arguably committed an egregious Sixth Amendment error when she excluded the family of a criminal defendant and the general public from her courtroom during jury selection, pointing to a lack of space. She also neglected to swear in the jury pool, and was forced to restart jury selection after realizing her mistake.
Cannon could also play a decisive role post-trial if Trump’s attorneys ask her to issue a directed verdict that would take the question of guilt out of the jury’s hands. Such motions are routinely made in criminal trials, but are rarely granted.
If all this seems like a prescription for disaster, take heart: Trump will soon be in the dock in the District of Columbia, Georgia, and New York State—all far beyond Judge Cannon’s reach.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Joins Demand for Trump-Appointed Judge's Recusal From Classified Docs Case
"At a minimum, Judge Cannon's prior history creates an unacceptable risk of an unavoidable appearance of bias in one of the most important proceedings in United States history," said Free Speech for People.
Jun 14, 2023
A government watchdog warned on Wednesday that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's oversight of the federal case regarding former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents and alleged jeopardizing of national security "undermines public confidence in the courts" due to her previous ruling on the matter last year, and demanded that Cannon be removed from the case unless she recuses herself.
In a letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on which Cannon also serves, the organization said the judge "demonstrated judicial error and extreme bias" when she ordered the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to halt its investigation into the classified documents that were discovered at the former Republican president's estate in Florida.
"In her order, Judge Cannon insisted that normal principles of prosecution and law could not be applied to Trump because of his status as former president," wrote the group. "The unprecedented and unprincipled ruling demonstrated that Judge Cannon could
not be, nor even appear to be, an impartial decision-maker."
Free Speech for the People (FSFP) said Altonaga should remove Cannon, who was appointed by Trump and confirmed after he lost the 2020 election, unless she recuses herself within 10 days, under federal laws requiring judges to disqualify themselves "'when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned' or when they have 'a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party'" in a case.
The group sent its letter less than a week after Trump, who is running for reelection in 2024, was indicted on charges including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and concealing documents in a federal investigation. Appearing in court on Tuesday, Trump pleaded not guilty.
In an op-ed at Slate on Monday, ethics attorneys Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Fred Wertheimer wrote that Cannon's assignment to United States v. Donald Trump "cannot stand."
\u201cIn light of the reversal on appeal of her prior rulings in this case, Judge Cannon now should recuse.\nhttps://t.co/9CLvWaSJK4\u201d— Richard W. Painter (@Richard W. Painter) 1686584594
In addition to Cannon's "deeply erroneous step" of ordering the end of the DOJ's investigation and appointing a special master to oversee the case, they wrote, her "statements and actions in the prior proceedings made clear her view that Trump is entitled to differential treatment than any other criminal defendant."
"She wrote that 'as a function of plaintiff's former position as president of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own,'" noted Eisen, Painter, and Wertheimer. "She reiterated this position in denying the government's motion for a partial stay of her order pending appeal, stating that her consideration 'is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by [Trump].'"
FSFP pointed out on Wednesday that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously overturned Cannon's ruling last year, calling it a "radical reordering of our case law limiting federal courts" which, if allowed to stand, would "violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations."
"At a minimum, Judge Cannon's prior history creates an unacceptable risk of an unavoidable appearance of bias in one of the most important proceedings in United States history," said FSFP. "The public will view Judge Cannon as a biased decision-maker who opposes the prosecution, and who is prepared to enact unorthodox legal measures to favor Trump in court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular