Judge tosses Trump documents case, ruling prosecutor unlawfully appointed

[edjr 6,048]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-135928486.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday dismissed the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of illegally holding onto classified documents, dealing the former president another major legal victory as the Republican seeks a return to the White House.

Florida-based U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who was nominated by Trump, ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, was unlawfully appointed to his role and did not have the authority to bring the case.

Drumpf!!

[Tree of Knowledge 1,166]

Excellent.  Finally taking baby steps to restore our faith in the justice system.  

[Mike Honcho 4,446]

8 minutes ago, edjr said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-135928486.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday dismissed the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of illegally holding onto classified documents, dealing the former president another major legal victory as the Republican seeks a return to the White House.

Florida-based U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who was nominated by Trump, ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, was unlawfully appointed to his role and did not have the authority to bring the case.

Drumpf!!

She is about to get dumped from the case ASAP.  Special Counsel have been ruled legal for years, this will be appealed with a writ of mandamus---and at that point the 11th will remove her, her errors are too much for her to be allowed to continue. 

Quote

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was put on the bench by Mr. Trump, flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back to the Watergate era that upheld the legality of the ways in which independent prosecutors have been named. And in a single swoop, it removed a major legal threat against Mr. Trump on the first day of the Republican National Convention, where he is set to formally become the party’s nominee for president.

 

[GutterBoy 2,896]

Dumb.  Will be overturned, but she did her job of delaying this past election day, that's all they ever wanted because this was a slam dunk case.

[thegeneral 2,046]

Activist judges!!

[Reality 2,884]

[IGotWorms 3,759]

Well, she wasted no time capitalizing on that

[squistion 1,375]

This is what is known as the law of unintended consequences. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1812856042998345772

If Judge Cannon's ruling holds, the Hunter Biden conviction would have to be thrown out.

[squistion 1,375]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1812862725866897571

Reminder: Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in the immunity decision, invited Judge Aileen Cannon to grant Trump's Motion to Dismiss on the Appointments Clause issue.

[Reality 2,884]

[weepaws 2,693]

Immunity, It works 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,166]

Kyle Griffin AND Katie Phang in the same thread!!!  That’s a double word score in misinformation scrabble.  

[squistion 1,375]

https://x.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1812874771358433440

Today’s precedent-shattering decision in Florida is further proof that the guardrails of our democracy are coming down.

Again, a partisan judge throws out decades of precedent to reach a desired political outcome.

Justice is again delayed so it may be denied.

[Strike 4,389]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1812874771358433440

Today’s precedent-shattering decision in Florida is further proof that the guardrails of our democracy are coming down.

Again, a partisan judge throws out decades of precedent to reach a desired political outcome.

Justice is again delayed so it may be denied.

Adam Schitt. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,166]

Cannon will be a great replacement for Sotomayor.  

[edjr 6,048]

12 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1812874771358433440

Today’s precedent-shattering decision in Florida is further proof that the guardrails of our democracy are coming down.

Again, a partisan judge throws out decades of precedent to reach a desired political outcome.

Justice is again delayed so it may be denied.

Not even 48 hours after someone tried to kill Drumpf, schit is still stirring the pot and trying to anger the next person to try take drumpf out

[squistion 1,375]

Just now, edjr said:

Not even 48 hours after someone tried to kill Drumpf, schit is still stirring anger. 

I think Judge Aileen Cannon is the one stirring anger with her decision. 

[iam90sbaby 2,256]

Based.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,166]

It’s not like she ruined their last shot at Trump before the election.  

[Engorgeous George 1,583]

I find myself doubting that any here have actually read and digested the 93 page ruling, meaning they are just taking their partisan sides, as they almost always do.  For those interested in the ruling here it is:

 

gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

[IGotWorms 3,759]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

I find myself doubting that any here have actaully read and digested the 93 opage ruling, meaning they are just taking their opartisan sidesd, as they almost always do.  for those inte4rested in the ruling here it is:

 

gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Oh well if it’s 93 pages, it must be good

[cyclone24 1,900]

No matter what you think of Trump having it thrown out for that reason is probably the stupidest thing this administration has done. 
 

Excellent. Delay it until after the election. Trump gets in and then have the new Attorney General general dump the case. 
 

Another sham case isn’t working out for you guys. And if you had any integrity, you’d be wanting a Biden documents case but of course you don’t.

[Dizkneelande 964]

MISSED AGAIN MAGA MONDAY!! WINNING!

[Engorgeous George 1,583]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Oh well if it’s 93 pages, it must be good

Was that my point? That was'nt my point, was it?  Nope, not my point or even remotely inferable from what I wrote.  It is an interesting decision.  It does run counter to precedent, to stare decisis, but it does so by basically saying in the past, when special council has been appointed it has always been ill-considered in light of pressing political grounds.  It basically says that the existing precedent never wrestled with the appointment power more or less as an oversight by past courts.  It is an interesting argument worthy of consideration. It will be interesting what the Court of Appeals will do with it, and likely the Supreme Court some day.

 

Moving forward I am guessing special prosecutors will be appointed in compliance with the Apointments Clause until and unless the Suprerme Court provides direction.  

[Nomad99 573]

24 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

No matter what you think of Trump having it thrown out for that reason is probably the stupidest thing this administration has done. 
 

Excellent. Delay it until after the election. Trump gets in and then have the new Attorney General general dump the case. 
 

Another sham case isn’t working out for you guys. And if you had any integrity, you’d be wanting a Biden documents case but of course you don’t.

If Trump was a deranged old man they wouldn't have tried at all....proof they don't believe his abilities are compromised

[cyclone24 1,900]

1 minute ago, Nomad99 said:

If Trump was a deranged old man they wouldn't have tried at all....proof they don't believe his abilities are compromised

Seriously if Joe Biden was a regular person committed a crime today I’m not sure you could mentally find him fit to stand trial as a civilian.

[jerryskids 5,735]

14 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Was that my point? Tthat was'nt my point, was it?  Nope, not my point or even remotely inferable from what I wrote.  It is an interesting decision.  It does run counter to precedent, to stare decisis, but it does so by basically saying in the past, when special council has been appointed it has always been ill-considered in light of pressing political grounds.  It basically says that the existing precedent never wrestled with the appointment power more or less as an oversight by past courts.  It is an interesting argument worthy of consideration. It will be interesting what the Court of Appeals will do with it, and likely the Supreme Court some day.

 

Moving forward I am guessing special prosecutors will be appointed in compliance with the Apointments Clause until and unless the Suprerme Court provides direction.  

Worms is a pretend lawyer, as evidenced by his thoughtful response to you.

 

[Strike 4,389]

28 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I find myself doubting that any here have actually read and digested the 93 page ruling, meaning they are just taking their partisan sides, as they almost always do.  For those interested in the ruling here it is:

 

gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

I didn't read this decision but I have read the arguments in favor of it, including Justice Thomas's.  I'm not a lawyer so can't analyze it legally but I did find it interesting.

[Nomad99 573]

1 minute ago, cyclone24 said:

Seriously if Joe Biden was a regular person committed a crime today I’m not sure you could mentally find him fit to stand trial as a civilian.

Rite!

[IGotWorms 3,759]

26 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Was that my point? Tthat was'nt my point, was it?  Nope, not my point or even remotely inferable from what I wrote.  It is an interesting decision.  It does run counter to precedent, to stare decisis, but it does so by basically saying in the past, when special council has been appointed it has always been ill-considered in light of pressing political grounds.  It basically says that the existing precedent never wrestled with the appointment power more or less as an oversight by past courts.  It is an interesting argument worthy of consideration. It will be interesting what the Court of Appeals will do with it, and likely the Supreme Court some day.

 

Moving forward I am guessing special prosecutors will be appointed in compliance with the Apointments Clause until and unless the Suprerme Court provides direction.  

Well we know what this Supreme Court will do with it

[TBayXXXVII 2,289]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well we know what this Supreme Court will do with it

Are you saying they'll act just like Merchan?  Or was that (D)ifferent?

[TimHauck 2,061]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

It’s not like she ruined their last shot at Trump before the election.  

Hey buddy, you can’t say “shot,” that is dangerous rhetoric

[Hardcore troubadour 13,571]

Just like it was said by the left concerning the courts decisions concerning the 2020 election, in the name of consistency, the leftards that were preaching that mit respect the court here. A-ha.