Below is my column in the New York Post on the opinion of Judge Aileen Cannon. Once again, Democracy is “under attack” because a judge ruled against the prosecution in a Trump case. Indeed, law professors and legal experts are demanding the removal of Cannon for having the temerity to adopt an opposing view of the underlying constitutional claim.
Here is the column:
“This is how republics collapse.” Those ominous words captured the hand-wringing, hair-pulling reaction to the dismissal of the Florida case against Donald Trump by Judge Aileen Cannon.
It was not just that she reached a conclusion long supported by some conservative lawyers and a Supreme Court justice.
To rule in favor of Trump in such a dismissal is, once again, the end of Democracy as we know it.
The 93-page order methodically goes through the governing cases and statutes for the appointment of prosecutors. There has long been a debate over how an attorney general like Merrick Garland can circumvent the constitutional process for the appointment of a U.S. Attorney and unilaterally elevate a citizen to wield even greater power.
With the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act in 1999, attorneys general have long relied upon their inherent authority to appoint “inferior officers” to special counsel investigations. The issue has never been conclusively ruled upon by the Supreme Court, even though lower courts have rejected this challenge.
The Trump ruling is certainly an outlier and the odds favor prosecutor Jack Smith on appeal. Many point to a challenge in 2019 in the D.C. Circuit to the appointment of Robert Mueller. The court found that “binding precedent establishes that Congress has ‘by law’ vested authority in the Attorney General to appoint the Special Counsel as an inferior officer.”
That is the view of many lawyers and judges. However, Judge Cannon disagreed and found a lack of clear authority for both the appointment and the appropriations used for Smith.
Nevertheless, legal experts were incredulous and irate. Jed Shugerman, a Boston University Law professor, is quoted as expressing shock that Judge Cannon is essentially saying, “I’m not bound by the DC Circuit, and I think they misinterpret this.”
He added that it showed an “astonishing level of dismissiveness.”
However, in point of fact, Judge Cannon is not bound by the D.C. Circuit. As a federal judge in Florida, she is bound by the 11th Circuit and, of course, the Supreme Court. She is allowed to reach a different conclusion on a matter of law.
Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard University, declared that “Judge Cannon just did the unthinkable,” He added, “This finally gives Jack Smith an opportunity to seek her removal from the case. I think the case for doing so is very strong.” (Tribe previously declared that he was certain “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt” that Trump could be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence).
It does not matter to these critics that other lawyers and judges agree with Judge Cannon.
Justice Clarence Thomas recently expressed the same view in the Trump immunity decision in his concurrence. He did not view this as a settled question and wrote “if this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”
Yet these experts believe that a judge without a direct controlling case on the question should be removed for reaching the same conclusion as a member of the Supreme Court and at least two former U.S. Attorneys General.
Of course, these experts would be aghast at any suggestion that D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan should be removed after being reversed by the Supreme Court in the recent immunity opinion.
Such experts are not raising questions of bias over Chutkin’s rulings in favor of Smith or the similar pattern of Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan.
Yet Cannon is viewed as not simply wrong, but partisan in ruling for Trump.
How do republics collapse?
When judges are pressured or removed for ruling against favored parties.
When the system is undermined by leading political leaders who go to the steps of the Supreme Court to threaten justices that they “will pay the price” for ruling against one side.
When law professors call the courts the “enemy” and push to cut off air conditioning to coerce them to resign.
Alexander Hamilton once said that the Republic is preserved “through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
That does not mean that the trial courts are always right. That is why we have appellate courts. However, conflicting decisions are the norm in cases that make it to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the justices often wait for such divisions to occur before they finally resolve long-standing questions.
These demands for the removal of Judge Cannon are simply extensions of the same group think culture of the “defenders of Democracy.”This Republic will not “collapse” if Judge Cannon is right or if she is wrong. It is safe as long as judges are able to rule according to their understanding of the law, regardless of the demands of the perpetually and emphatically enraged.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
The inability of the mainstream media, predominantly (by far) liberal and Democrat, to accept a win/win, to work so hard and feverishly for a lose/lose over a lose / win, is indicative of widespread character-disorder, psychopathy even, throughout the industry. There’s no question in my mind that the industry’s short-sighted collusion to politically alienate Trump from America has seriously worsened their own insecurities and loosened (perhaps permanently) their grips on reality and reason, all to America’s detriment.
Jonathan: You gave away the game in your column. You admit “The Trump ruling [by Judge Cannon] is certainly an out liar and the odds favor prosecutor Jack Smith on appeal”.
Cannon’s unfathomable 93-page decision dismissing the Mar-a-Lago case flies in the face of all previous court rulings, including the SC, that independent and special counsels are authorized by federal statutes.
Cannon has now revealed she is a collaborator with DJT, not “fair and impartial”. Her decision was long in the coming and she waited for the opportunity to release it –emboldened by Justice Thomas non-binding concurrence in the “immunity” case urging Cannon to find the Special Counsel statute unlawful. It’s probably no coincidence Cannon dropped her decision after DJT’s shooting to give maximum effect to DJT’s campaign theme that he has won another “court victory”.
Cannon has already been slapped down by the 11th Circuit when she unlawfully tried to interfere with the FBI investigation of the Mar-a-Lago documents. That’s why most legal experts predict she will be rebuked again by the 11th Circuit and even removed from the case.
But Cannon accomplished what she set out to do. There is no chance Jack Smith can bring his case to trial before the election. The only “meltdown” here is what Cannon accomplished–the “meltdown” and undermining of the rule of law!
Outlier. Not out liar.
Festering pinhead.
Dennis McIntyre, crying his police state fascist eyes out that the Soviet Democrat’s police state fascist Jack Black went down hard AGAIN!:
Jonathan: You gave away the game in your column… Cannon’s unfathomable 93-page decision dismissing the Mar-a-Lago case flies in the face of all previous court rulings, including the SC, that independent and special counsels are authorized by federal statutes.
How about the previous Washington DC court decision regarding the classified information former president BJ Clinton had kept hidden in his sock drawer, and if he decided to keep and hide classified information from his presidency, his right to do that was unquestionable. Dennis and Jack Black are both completely unaware of that?
Which previous court rulings dealt with a Special Counsel who was a civilian hiding in disgrace living outside of the U.S.A.?
Never in our history has a civilian lawyer – one hiding in disgrace outside of the U.S.A. – been chosen to serve as Special Counsel. It’s always been a choice made from the THOUSANDS of qualified federal prosecutors here at home, nominated and appointed by presidents and congresses from both parties.
Baghdad Bob McIntyre at times claims to be a career lawyer – suddenly he finds this decision is “unfathomable”. I don’t believe he read a single word of the decision. He’s simply parroting another Soviet Democrat apparatchik.
But Baghdad Bob McIntyre wants to talk about previous court rulings in defense of the civilian Jack Black.. The man that is allegedly the best choice for the job, rather than any of the THOUSANDS of federal prosecutors here in America they could choose from, so lets do that. Jack Black is the only man who can do this job – he proved it in how he took out Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell back during the 2012 election campaign. Previous court decisions:
SCOTUS in a rare unanimous 2016 decision found that Jack Black took out the prospective GOP nominee Obama/Biden most feared in their 2012 reelection campaign by inventing new law, reinterpreting settled law, and essentially lying to the jury about what the law means and says. Dennis should take note that the SCOTUS decision said verbatim that Obama prosecutor Jack Black is “a threat to our separation of powers”.
Clearly, SCOTUS in 2016 ruled that police state fascist Obama/Biden prosecutor Jack Black is one of those “threats to our democracy” that Bribery Biden and Soviet Democrats like Dennis McIntyre shriek at the top of their lungs as their election platform.
In a more recent SCOTUS decision, Justice Thomas pointed out that, like immunity, the question of who could be appointed a Special Counsel by an AG had never been settled by SCOTUS. An AG and his prosecutors/henchmen had never declared before that a president did not have any kind of immunity. Nor before had an AG declared that a civilian lawyer living in disgrace outside of the country could be appointed rather than one of the THOUSANDS of federal prosecutors here in America.
Finally, in Judge Cannon’s decision, she found out that Merrick Garland’s method of choosing a civilian hiding outside of the country after SCOTUS called him out, rather than one of the thousands of federal prosecutors here in the country was…. yep “a threat to the separation of powers”.
Happy to help Baghdad Bob McIntyre with his memories of two SCOTUS decisions regarding police state fascist prosecutors chosen TWICE to take out the most dangerous opponents to a Soviet Democrat president’s reelection hopes.
Aside from the questions regarding inferior and superior officers regarding Special Counsels, how can Baghdad Bob defend a police state fascist president and his police state fascist Attorney General choose a civilian police state fascist Jack Black to be what a Special Counsel is supposed to be: clearly seen by Americans to have a record as an unbiased, impartial prosecutor with no links to the current DoJ that appoints him because doing the investigation themselves would leave questions of a fair investigation?
Disgraced Soviet Democrat police state fascist prosecutor Jack Black is in every single respect the complete opposite of what a Special Counsel should be.
And Dennis ‘Baghdad Bob’ McIntyre demands we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes when they tell us that Jack Smith was specifically brought back from living in disgrace abroad to take out President Trump exactly how Jack Black took out Governor McDonnell in 2012 to help Obama/Biden win reelection.
Dennis McIntyre is a Cheap Fake version of a real American
I love all justices and judges until i dont. They are all unimpeachable until they disagree with me—-Dennis McIntyre
There are 3 major flaws that Cannon addressed. All of which could have been over come by Garland by doing this differently.
1). The special counsel is NOT an inferior officer of the United States – he CLEARLY has more executive power than a US Attorney – who MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
2). Jack Smith was not in any way shape of form appointed by the president or confirmed by Congress.
3). There is no Special Counsel Statute.
Past AG’s have solved issues 1 and 2 by appointing an existing US Attorney as SC – that does not get arround problem #3, and it does not address the fact that the AG would be making a lateral transfer – not the president as required by the constitution and supreme court.
Only TWO SC’s ever have not been US attorney’s at the time they were appointed – Muller and Smith.
Weiss as an example was a US attorney, was appointed by the president and was confirmed by congress – just not as SC.
If Garland did not want the problem he now has, he could have appointed a US attorney as SC – that would have gotten arround all issues except the absense of an SC statute, and it is likely that even Cannon would have punted on that.
Another alternative – which Garland had that would avoid ALL problems – would have been to no appoint a SC at all and run this entirely as a normal DOJ investigation/prosecution with US attorney’s. That would have required the FL case to be prosecuted by the FL US attorney and the DC case to be prosecuted by the DC US Attorney – but otherwise would have no effect.
Cannon did not dismiss this case with prejudice – therefore DOJ can continue to prosecute Trump for the classified documents issue.
They just must do so through the US attorney in Florida, with a new investigation and a FL grand jury must indict.
Which is what they should have done from the start.
I would note this decision is actually good news for Hunter Biden. Because while SC Weiss does NOT have all the flaws that SC Smith does,
The Hunter Biden case is different than the Trump case in that unarguably there is a clear conflict and DOJ can not investigate and prosecute Hunter Biden. There must be an SC and there is no SC statute.
John Say,
Thank you for your analysis.
If the case had been prosecuted in Florida, then wouldn’t the grand jury have been in Florida and not Smith’s selected liberal lynch mob?
If that had been the case there would be no case.
John Say,
Wrong.
“ 1). The special counsel is NOT an inferior officer of the United States – he CLEARLY has more executive power than a US Attorney – who MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.”
You’re clearly confused. The APPOINTMENT of an inferior officer is authorized to be done by the AG. It does not mean that the SC is an inferior officer.
“ 28 U.S.C. § 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.” —US vs Nixon 1974.
Jack Smith did NOT have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate to be appointed SC by the AG. That’s not what the law says. The DC circuit affirmed the statutes that given the AG the authority to appoint special counsels. Cannon chose to ignore that purposefully and Turley knows she’s wrong.
There is a SC statute. 18 USC 533
“ 533. Investigative and other officials; appointment
The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;
(2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President; and
(3) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.”
28 usc 515,
“ The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.
(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.”
28 USC 510,
“ The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.”
So yes there ARE statutes pertaining to the authority to delegate or designate a DOJ official as special counsel. It does NOT require a president’s appointment and a senate confirmation. The whole point of having that authority is to ensure independence from either branch. Judge Cannon is essentially arguing that Smith is too independent. There’s no such thing. Weiss is in the same position as Smith since he was also appointed by Garland.
The issue Cannon was deciding on is whether Garland had the power to appoint special counsels. Indeed he was. Weiss was not appointed special counsel by the president or the senate. Garland appointed him. Cannon is saying in her ruling that Garland or any other AG does not have the authority to appoint an SC. She is clearly wrong and Turley passively agrees without openly stating it. The 11th circuit has already ruled against judge Cannon for her poor decisions. Once again the 11th circuit will have to correct her error.
You are correct that Garland can just hand over the case to a US attorney, BUT that will remove the independence an SC would have and therefore give Garland more authority over the US attorney. Something I think Trump’s team will vehemently oppose and characterize as Biden controlling Garland’s decisions.
Weiss does indeed have the same flaw if Cannon’s ruling is upheld it would mean Weiss was also improperly appointed by Garland.
Weiss as an example was a US attorney, was appointed by the president and was confirmed by congress – just not as SC.
Correct
Weiss is a U.S. Attorney, was nominated by the US president and confirmed by the Senate. The DOJ can send out US Attorneys to prosecute anybody at any time but they still answer to the AG and ultimately to the US president.
Charged with ensuring “that the laws be faithfully executed,” the 93 United States Attorneys work to enforce federal laws throughout the country. The President appoints a United States Attorney to each of the 94 federal districts (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are separate districts but share a United States Attorney). The United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer in their district and is also involved in civil litigation where the United States is a party.
https://www.justice.gov/usao
Jack Smith is not a US Attorney.
Jack Smith was not nominated by the US president.
Jack Smith was not confirmed by the US senate.
Jack Smith is a regular shmo on the street.
“Justice Scalia’s dissent suggested that only a principal “Officer of the United States,” i.e. an appointee subject to the President’s removal power, could exercise the sweeping power the Independent Counsel exercised.”
BRIEF OF PROFESSOR SETH BARRETT TILLMAN AND LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TRUMP’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-21-Tillman-Brief.pdf
Merrick Garland claims Jack Smith is independent and answers to no one. If true that makes him illegal. Under Merrick Garland’s delusions of grandeur, he could find an Act Blue supporter, give him a budget to illegally raid the former US President, illegally place cover sheets on mundane papers and stamp them as Classified, and illegally prosecute the former US president.
Judge Cannon knows all of this given her training, career experience, and knowledge of authoritarian aholes like Biden’s Handlers. That Biden’s ilk attempted an assassination of Trump likely confirmed her disgust with the illegalities of Jack Smith, Merrick Garland and Biden’s Handlers, aka system of checks and balances vis a vis US Constitution. Recall the Left violently brags about disregarding the US Constitution. Biden does it regularly.
Given Biden is sinking like the Titanic, it would be surprising if DOJ appealed. But then again, they arent known for using judicious reasoning.
Cannon is correct. I would further note that she is sufficiently correct that the problem can not be corrected by congress passing a law.
Correctly addressing this problem requires an amendment to the constitution.
The claim that the Special Counsel is an inferior officer of the US is logically absurd – US Attorney’s are officers of the US and MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. The “office” of specioal counsel is inargably one of more significance and importance than a US Attorney.
So NO the AG can not create an Office of Special Counsel. PERIOD.
Congress could do so by statute – which is ONE of the Flaws that Cannon addresses – but since the demise of the IC law in 1999 there has been no statutory authority for anything like this.
But lets assume that there was a special counsel Law creating an office of special counsel. The person holding that office would STILL have to be apointed by the president and confirement by the Senate. The AG is not confirred by the constitution with the power to Vest executive power in others. Only the president has the constitutional ability to vest the power given to the executive by the constitution or congress in another.
SCOTUS has allowed PRESIDENTS to game the requirement that congress confirm presidential appointments by making Latteral trransfers.
SCOTUS has allowed the president to put someone who has already been confirmed by congress into a position different from the one they were confirmed for. That is constitutional error too, but it is the state of the supreme courts reading of the constitution.
But SCOTUS has NOT blessed the lateral transfer of someone appointed by the president and confirmed by congress when that lateral transfer is by anyone other than the president – though the courts have turned a blind eye to such lateral transfers when done by the AG for the purpose of a special counsel.
The reason that we need a constitutional amendment is because there is an obvious need for Special Counsels. And at this moment in time we have no constitutional means to have them.
The Trump case however Does NOT demonstrate the problem. The investigation and prosecution of Trump did not require a special counsel. Presidents (and AGs) do NOT have a conflict that bars them from their job when an expresident and possible future political rival is the target – though they SHOULD proceed with extreme caution.
A conflict requiring a special counsel exists when the Attorney General is seeking to investigate the President, the White House or the DOJ Officers of the United States.
We must have a mechanism for dealing with that. And that requires a constitutional amendment.
Among other reasons because the decision to appoint such special counsel and the mechanism for over seeing them should NOT fall to the Attorney General. The IC law required that a 3 judge pannel of federal judges determine the scope of an IC investigation and that the IC report to congress.
WE need a mechanism for appointing Special counsels that only applies when there is a true conflict, one that is difficult to politically abuse,
and where the appointment is NOT done by those in the executive branch.
Then we need a mechanism for oversight or that special counsel that is also independent of the executive branch.
Those requirements can not be accomplished without a constitutional amendment.
One of the reasons that the IC law was allowed to expire is that it was generally agreed that it was not constitutional.
Yet it is more constitutional than what we have now.
“. . . unilaterally elevate a citizen to wield even greater power.” (JT)
Can an AG appoint any *private citizen* as a Special Counsel? The baker, the butcher, the candlestick maker?
If so, what is the law or constitutional authority that grants such a power?
At the time of his appointment, Smith was a private citizen. He resigned his DOJ position in 2017.
Canon’s ruling is just plain dumb, but it has had a clearly biased success metric in postponing somewhat of a slam dunk case for something having nothing to do with the merits.
The 11th circuit will slap Canon down. Again. Obviously her idiocy has the support of Thomas at the SCOTUS and Robert’s will slow walk things when the court seeks to tip the scales, that’s a given. So trump will probably die before this trial gets under way.
The judiciary and legal system have failed completely in dealing with a rogue president. This failure is the goal of the right and Turley is right in the middle of that effort. So let’s be clear eyed about what’s going on and not be buffaloed by Turley’s schtick.
And let’s all be clear on your motive{s} as to why you are here, everyday, to add your narrowly-tailored and predictable criticisms, -especially as “Anonymous.” Thanks.
Yup. Theyre all copy/paste from previous comments that the Media Matters troll posts 25/8. When he is mocked, ridiculed and given a dose of his own medicine, no matter which sock puppet name he uses, he brings his multiple personalities / sockpuppets to go utterly batsheet crazy and flood the comment boxes. David Brock likely molded him (as well as did other things to him…just saying)
If only his comments provided a sliver of intellectual depth. Am I asking for the moon here?!?! 🌔
😜
Estovir,
LOL!
Thanks!
Lin,
Well said.
Yes, Cannon is just an idiot – two well respected Former US Attorney Generals are idiots, innumerable constitutional scholars not on the left are idiots and atleast one Supreme court justice in a concurrance that no other justice took issue with is an idiot,
as well as innumerable past supreme court decisions on the apointments clause.
All these are stupid – BECAUSE ATS SAYS SO.
To the extent this issue has gone to the supreme court before – SCOTUS has decided consistent with Cannon – not the FEW other federal courts that have upheld challenges to SC’s in the past.
Regardless, this decision actually has more bearing on the Hurr and Weis appointment than the Smith one.
Inarguably in the Hurr and Weiss cases DOJ had a clear conflict involving the president. There is no work arround the unconstitutional appointment of Weiss and Hurr, and no remedy short of a constitutional amendment.
But the Trump prosecutions were just botched by AG Garland. There is no need to appoint an SC to investigate a FORMER president and in fact doing so does not even avoid the alleged conflcit that SC’s are supposed to exist for. Arguably it makes the problem WORSE not better. The AG can appoint an SC who is not constrained in political bias, who can select a clich of attorney’s far more biased than those at DOJ.
Regardless AG Garland could have allowed the Classified documents case to be handled by the US attorney for Florida and there would be no dismissal.
John Say posted:
Regardless AG Garland could have allowed the Classified documents case to be handled by the US attorney for Florida and there would be no dismissal.
And by extension regarding Bribery Biden’s stashes of classified documents stolen from SKIFs during 40 years of felony service to America and himself, by the US attorneys in each of the states where they were found. Garland certainly didn’t feel a need to appoint some more Special Counsels to deal with other former presidents and vice presidents who admitted to having classified information as well.
[sidebar: what legitimate reason rooted in “Equal Justice For All (trademark)” did Merrick Garland have for announcing a Special Counsel criminal investigation into Trump just before the election – while at the same time hiding that he knew his boss Bribery Biden had an extensive classified documents problem with zero excuse, and then waited until after the election was over and the ballots counted before announcing he was also selecting a Special Counsel to investigate Biden?]
“Regardless AG Garland could have allowed the Classified documents case to be handled by the US attorney for Florida and there would be no dismissal.”
Doesn’t that prove the political nature of the indictment?
ATS this is just one of many reasons this case hard to be dismissed.
I know you are not following this – but even Smith conceded as a matter of law that the transfer of all these classified documents to MAL was perfectly legal.
There is absolutely not Espionage act case EVER in which classified documents were legally obtained.
Smith was stuck with the never before made argument that Trump as president could take the documents to MAL,
but once his presidency ended he had a duty – even though he was now a private citizen, to return those documents.
That ignores the many other constitutional issues, and 250 years of practice and several recent federal cases.
“The judiciary and legal system have failed completely in dealing with a rogue president. This failure is the goal of the right and Turley is right in the middle of that effort. So let’s be clear eyed about what’s going on and not be buffaloed by Turley’s schtick.”
Turley’s site should not permit obvious bots (=Anonymous) to submit any comments, much less dumbass comments like the one above. Anonymous does not exist.
Thanks for checking in fellas. All sniveling magat feedback duly respected. You’re all naught but participants at the cretin circle jerk and I’m glad you’re having fun as you groan and lick the windows.
A cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat said in defense of police state fascist Obama prosecutor Jack Smith:
The 11th circuit will slap Canon down.
Exactly like SCOTUS just eight years ago slapped down Jack Smith and his prosecution of Obama’s most feared GOP opponent, Jack Smith? SCOTUS in a rare unanimous decision said that Obama prosecutor Jack Smith was “a threat to the separation of powers”?
The 11th circuit is going to rule that Cannon is a “threat to the separation of powers” like SCOTUS ruled Obama prosecutor Jack Smith was a threat to our democracy?
There’s a reason Soviet Democrat police state fascists don’t want to address the fact that, questions regarding officers aside, Jack Smith is the complete opposite of what a Special Counsel is supposed to be. Jack Smith has a record as a police state fascist biased political prosecutor. Obama/Biden’s version of Stalin’s Lavarentiy Beria, serving a president’s reelection campaign with deep ties to the current DoJ that he is supposedly chosen because he can be trusted to be impartial where the DoJ cannot be.
The Obama and Biden DoJ’s have also adopted the Russian Soviets’ model of justice: “Show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes or create them”.
@ Anon
Usually I follow David’s rule and pass over the Anonymous critters but the fact that people whom I respect, Lin, Upstate and Estovir remarked on your post I glanced at it and discovered I agreed with one of your statements:
“The judiciary and legal system have failed completely in dealing with a rogue president.”
Pretty much true with Biden.
A clear example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ can be found in the primary vote in AOC’s district. Her irrelevant majority laid against the percentage of registered Democrats who DID NOT PARTICPATE is clear. Such is the advantage obtained through the capitalization of the bigotry of low expectation of the low information voter. She has these fools in her pocket, and knows it.
JT says “Once again, Democracy is “under attack” because a judge ruled against the prosecution in a Trump case.”
NO, That is not why Democracy is under attack. JT you are not that simple minded, stop it. Grow up. The SC has given the President, including Biden, the power to do anything they want. Official duties is all it takes. So far Biden has ignored the SC and is not taking power. Will a President trump do the same? We don’t know, We do know he sat on his ass on Jan 6 and watched the Capitol be ransacked by “his” people.
trump had classified documents in his bathroom at his residence. trump is a citizen, not president. How many people have gone to jail for lengthy sentences for the sam offense. crimes for thee but not for me.
The unbelievably shallow arguments of the left are disturbing.
SCOTUS has CONSTANTLY told the executive they can not do many many things.
While I beleive Roberts immunity decision was really a stupid power grab by the courts – the decision as to when presidents are immune is NOT a decision for the courts, it is a decision that constitutionally belongs to congress.
When the president has acted such that they must be sanctioned – impeach, remove, prosecute.
We do not want Federal courts conducting some analysis to determine whether this or that act of a president warrants immunity.
Biden has not taken advantage of the situation – because he can not. The domain that the president can act with absolute immunity is that of the presidential powers defined by the constitution.
And that includes taking classified document home after you are no longer president?
Official duties includes telling a state to find him 11,000 votes?
Official duties includes organizing fake electors from states he lost in and get the VP to throw out official votes and count the fake ones? And if the VP doesn’t. do it then he is not so good a friend to the dear leader mister orange god?
trump has been the one calling for violence and he got it.
The Republican judges have systematically been changing the law in Trump’s favor, sometimes overruling decades (or centuries) of precedent. When the legal system becomes an enabler of illegal behavior of an head of state, that is defiantly how free countries fall.
What I don’t understand is why Turley wrote this for he wants the US to fall as a free country.
Under Democrats, the US is falling as a free country. They are the ones who want censorship. They are the ones who want the state to be in between a parent and their child. They are the ones who want pornography in elementary school libraries. They are the ones for open borders. They are the ones trying to get us into another Forever war. They are the ones who use the law to go after their political rivals.
UpstateFarmer: I’m not certain if you meant that the US is “falling” as a free country, or is “failing” as a free country. But since most of the weight of partisanship is located in our threatened “climate crisis” coastal regions, you may have scored a double header! ha ha, In addition to your weapons, ammo, and food that you have referred to in the past, I would suggest adding a rowboat.
Lin,
LOL!
Does a kayak count? 😉
Personally I am more worried about the MAGAs who do not want democracy and are trying to elect a traitor rapist felon racist fraudster who already tried an attempted coup. That is a real threat.
Something that has never happened:
History professor: Why did that great nation fall?
Student: Because school kids read books that had LGBT characters and the immigration system was not draconian enough.
History professor: That is correct.
Actually the opposite is true.
It has NEVER been constitutional for the AG or even the president to create an “Office of the United States”.
It has NEVER been constitutional for even the president to appoint an Officer of the United States without senate confirmation.
There is centuries of supreme court decisions on this.
If as you claim the head of state is engaged in illegal conduct – impeach them and remove them, then prosecute.
Separately the president has ALWAYS engaged in illegal conduct. As has been noted repeatedly – President Obama ordered the assassination of two US citizens – there was no due process. There is no doubt that Obama’s actions were a crime.
There is also no doubt that they were within his national security powers as president.
Not podunk prosecutor sought to indict and prosecute him, no SC was appointed, and the house did not open impeachment inquiries.
There is a giant gulf between following the constitution AS WRITTEN – even when you do not like that, changing it when you do not like it, and deciding that the constitution is wrong and should be ignored.
Cannons decision follows the constitution to the letter. At the same time she has exposed a problem with the constitution.
There is no constitutional means for any investigation of a sitting president aside from an impeachment inquiry.
That is probably something we should remedy with a constitutional amendment.
HOWEVER that is irrelevant regarding the MAL case. There was never a requirement for a Special Counsel in the MAL case.
Jack Smith’s appointment was not merely unconstitutional, it was unnecessary. Trump was NOT at the time president or part of the white-house or part of the DOJ.
Garland could have avoided this AND still prosecuted Trump. Now he must start over from scratch with only a few months to do so.
John Say,
Thank you for that interesting comment and analysis.
That is the difference between what the good professor writes on, and the actual people with backgrounds in the law i.e. actual lawyers like Lin, Daniel, JJC, Honest, yourself and many others and those who are just copy and pasting from DNC talking points.
Thank you again and to all those others I mentioned and those I forgot.
Sammy the sniveling Soviet Democrat made this “I’m a victim” claim:
The Republican judges have systematically been changing the law in Trump’s favor
Like the TWO decisions by SCOTUS that legitimized Obamacare? Particularly the one where Justice Roberts found emanations and penumbras in the Constitution that allowed Bolshevik Barack to have legislative powers and add sections to Obamacare with his pen from the Oval Office that Congress did not put in?
Like SCOTUS giving homosexual marriage licenses in any state legitimacy in ALL states where homosexual marriage is nowhere in the Bill of Rights? While at the same time Concealed Carry licenses allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights can be denied by states who demand their homosexual marriage licenses must be accepted in the states who issued those carry licenses they do not recognize?
Always the victim Sammy, always the victim…
Well, professor, here’s a reliable bellwether of received opinion excoriating Judge Cannon:
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2024/07/16/tuesday-talk-the-disgrace-of-future-justice-aileen-cannon/
By the way, your idea that appellate courts exist to correct the errors of trial courts is quaint. Appellate courts set “policy”. In the federal system in particular, only a tiny percentage of cases get any attention at all, the vast majority are just mindlessly affirmed with “non-precedential” “summary orders”. The intermediate appellate courts have become “certiorari courts” like the SCOTUS. It’s the third branch’s version of the Administrative State.
I’m not endorsing any of that, of course. Indeed, my own view (not that my view matters in the slightest, however correct it might be) is that the third branch of government, and the legal profession that tends to it, collapsed a long time ago. We’re just watching it pan out, and the end is as inevitable as it is depressingly familiar.
In other words, we’re doomed, Trump or no Trump, Biden or no Biden.
Scott Greenfield is a bellwether of Scott Greenfield. That’s it. He is snarky, predictable, mercurial AF, censorial on his blog, he reminds his blog readers often of his flashy collection of expensive cars (eye roll), 20K followers on Twitter/X, but otherwise he is no bellwether of intellectual legal analysis.
Jonathan Turley & Eugene Volokh, without a doubt, are.
The scheme by the Biden administration to use the NARA to go after Trump’s presidential papers is a violation of law. DC federal District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling in Judicial Watch V NARA states unequivocally that “NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” also that “NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The Judges ruling is the lawful interpretation of the PRA.
The NARA acted contrary to the law by soliciting the help of Biden’s DOJ to obtain President Trumps papers. The DOJ acted contrary to the law by using an unlawfully obtained warrant allowing the FBI to seize President Trumps papers. The FBI acted contrary of the law by using an illegally obtained warrant to seize president Trump’s papers.
Furthermore the Constitution’s Article II is clear; “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The President obviously has unfettered authority to declassify any and all documents of the Executive Branch without any approval of or notification to the department under his authority.
We have established that the case of Jack Smith was and is based on actions contrary to the lawful interpretation of the PRA. The Biden Administration has without any doubt used its power to interfere in the election by attacking Biden’s opponent. Biden has by these and other actions worked to undermine the People’s Constitutional right to choose their President. The fact that Biden and his handlers have failed to achieve their goal, does not negate the that they are working to deprive the people of the United States their Constitutional right to choose their President.
Judge Cannon ruling is inline with many of our most respected legal experts. The ruling also clearly notes that our Constitution has mandates that the Executive Branch does not have authority to subvert.
Biden has a proven record of subverting the Constitution’s limitations. Biden, with malice has refused to meet his Constitutional mandate; “ he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” with his refusal to enforce the immigration laws passed by congress. Biden has unconditionally forgiven student loans without legislation passed by congress that appropriate the funding, and in violation of the constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court. Biden is so brazen he brags about his violation of the Supreme Court ruling and Constitutional law, forgiving tens of billions of dollars in student debt at taxpayer’s expense. Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is clearly theft of government funds.
Biden has stated many times that our Constitution is not absolute. He could not be more inaccurate. Article VI could not be more precise in its mandate; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”
Our Constitution is absolute and contains a resolute mandate that Biden and his administration are bound to support (protect, defend and enforce).
Judge Cannon’s ruling is in line with the Constitution’s mandates.
May I copy and repost your statement. You hit the nail on the head. For Dimocrats the Constitution is only followed when it suits their needs, otherwise it just an old document that needs updating.
eight previous opinions sustaining the ag authority- cannon knows better- leonard leo has spent his money wisely- 20 year old incel may have sealed the return to power of the vilest most toxic figure america has produced since jefferson davis -legally this case is a slam dunk-it just may be that the legal system in this country is simply not adequate to protect itself from such hostile corrosive offenders, including cannon and thomas- the abandoment by republican sychophants of the rule of law is simply astounding- turley wants to slopped as well, but he’ll have to find a place further down the trough- maybe next to andy mccarthy
Total BS!
ATS – none of those are supreme court opinions. most are trial court opinions. I beleive all are from the DC circuit. Further all of the prior challenges have failed to raise one or another of the constitutional flaws in the SC appointment, or those specific flaws did not exist in that particular case.
As an example ONLY Mueller and Smith were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate as US Attorneys prior to being raised to SC’s.
Meisse/Murcowskis observation that there is no Statute creating the SC office is a recently determined constitutional flaw that has not been previously adjudicated.
Conversely there are hundreds of years of SCOTUS decisions that officers of the US must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. SCOTUS has NEVER found otherwise. The closest they have come – which they decided wrongly is they have allowed the president to perform latteral transfers from on “Office” to another without senate approval.
Copntra your nonsense THIS IS THE RULE OF LAW.
Article II S2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Even the inferior offices must be created by congress.
The Democrat fear of Trump ‘suspending’ the Constitution is coming to pass in an entirely different form. They are giving cause for their schemes to be challenged as unconstitutional and are failing in the rulings thereof. All the better to be confident that our Constitutional Republic has teeth and that the ‘tyranny of the majority’ will not prevail.
According to copilot, the quote “This is how republics collapse” was uttered by Qasim Rashid, Esq. It came up in the context of the criminal classified documents case against former U.S. President Donald Trump
trump vowing to be a dictator on day one does’t come compare to this? Really?
The SC has given presidents power to do anything they want, no threat there is there.
No the SC has not.
Why do you expect to be trusted when you twist into a pretzel EVERYTHING you disagree with.
What s an “official” act? calling up the military to quell a rebellion?
Why did it take so long? If the Judge felt the prosecutor lacked legal authority to prosecute, why didn’t she say so 2 years ago? Why was it necessary to wait for a defense motion? Smith’s appointment took place 2 years ago.
It could be waived if the defense doesn’t challenge it. Courts can rule on their own jurisdiction sua sponte, but for most other things they have to wait for a challenge by the aggrieved party, and this was not a matter affecting the court’s jurisdiction. Courts do not make one side’s arguments for them. Also, judges are not generally thinking up issues, they handle issues raised by the parties. I would bet she was not alerted to the problem until it was raised in a motion, which is generally how it works at the trial court level.
NotSoOld: Agree.
(Although she might have been hoping that the issue would be raised!)
@pbinca: Re: “Why did it take so long?’ One can assemble a laundry list of violations of promulgated law which have been committed by this President in he current term which his feet should have been held to the fire for right out the gate. At law, it takes not only motivation, but standing to set the process in motion. Witness the impeachment of Mayorkas. Schumer has violated Constitutional law by NOT trying Mayorkas and there was no one to protest.
Because that is how the rule of law works.
Our courts are not pro-active. They are constitutionally required to deal ONLY with cases and controversies.
They must wait for a case to be brought to them.
Well, if the current president is so concerned about us being torn apart then he should end the lawfare, pull the cases in Miami and D.C., pressure the Fulton co. System to dismiss and push the NY judicial system to stop all further Trump proceedings and withdraw all cases and talk to the appeals courts in New York about the same . I am sure that if they can pick the judges in New York specifically for Trump cases then they can have a get together with the Appeals courts and stop it all. Then let Trump and Biden fight it out in front of the electorate.
Or maybe every red state attorney general files suit against New York for election interference and selective prosecution and that would go right into the Federal system.
I’m sure Jean Carroll’s democratic backer could just pay her a few millions of dollars and she would drop back into obscurity where she belongs.
Once there was a great city in New York State. What the terrorists of 9/11 failed to destroy is now being systematically destroyed by New York’s own wretched political and judicial terrorist system.
Missouri has done just that.
Turley wrote:
“How do republics collapse? When judges are pressured or removed for ruling against favored parties.”
The article itself is informative and well-written, but that stated premise should be revised, because it’s hyperbolic baloney, in both the original social media post and in Turley’s rebuttal. Please tell me just how many collapses of republics exist in the historical record? And exactly how many of those collapses can be clearly traced to judges being “pressured or removed for ruling against favored parties”? C’mon Professor, you can do a lot better than that.
Uh, perhaps you didn’t notice that “This is how republics collapse” is in quotation marks?
John Underwood
Tyler, TX
Anonymous at 8:36:
(1) I do not believe that JT’s reference to “judges [being] pressured or removed for ruling against favored parties” rises to the level of a “stated premise,” as you opine.
(2) I do not believe that JT in any way implied that any republic ever collapsed that could be “clearly traced to judges being ‘pressured or removed for ruling against favored parties.'”
(3) I do believe that perhaps your own comment represents “hyperbolic baloney,” (as you accuse JT of) , for the express reason that JT did not say what you conclude.
If you are an attorney/litigator, -you would know that very few cases are established by a controlling “stated premise (otherwise, there would be more summary judgments), –but rather by a sequential presentation of evidentiary indicia (often, “circumstantial evidence”), -each one independently insufficient to establish proof, but collectively leading further toward establishing the requisite burden. I infer that JT is merely pointing to some factors/examples that could sequentially and collectively lead one to a predictable conclusion.
In fact, I would add an additional factor toward JT’s OPINION of what leads to the collapse of a republic: an agenda-controlled national media (which has apparently influenced you?). That is indeed the danger of a politically-driven media. In this particular case, the media overwhelmingly reported the comments of “legal experts” who disagree with Cannon, while ignoring the “legal experts” who agree with Cannon.
–Very similar to how the media has overwhelmingly harped on J.D. Vance’s prior criticisms of Trump, –but fail to even mention how Kamala Harris hurled out criticism after criticism against Biden when she competed against him for Democratic presidential nominee.
I consider your comment today as no more than your opinion, as mine is mine. But thanks for expressing it for us to consider.
Lin,
Wow!
As always, you preform the most epic take downs!
“… The 93-page order methodically goes through the governing cases and statutes for the appointment of prosecutors. …”
The Honorable Judge Aileen Cannon, spelt out the opinion of her Order in explicit detail because She knew that the lack of judicial precedent in the matter of un-affirmed (by the Senate) “inferior officers” (Special Prosecutor – Mr. Jack Smith) conflicted with the Constitution, and She had the wherewithal to realize that this Case would be Appealed given it’s magnitude – of Presidential proportions.
IMO: This Mighty Lady doesn’t not running a Kangaroo Court – She smelt the Rat and put it out it’s of misery (Brilliantly done!). It cast more than shame upon the DOJ and the DNC et.al. for putting this Frame-Up against the President for all to see (Visual persecution, further enabled by the Media).
Garland, Smith, and Other Prosecutors in different Jurisdictions (Georgia, New York) motivated by the DNC’s -“Get Trump”- persecution(s) should be stripped of; Office, Disbarred for Life, and their retirements accounts Seized for participating in the Lawfair attack upon the Presidency (Complete Professional and Financial Penalization). Nothing ‘gave them the Right’ to the actions undertaken to enable this Hunt and Kill prosecutions of Pres. Donald J. Trump.
Russians are the baddies.