DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump

Hunter Biden is scummy but should not have been convicted.

How's that work for you?

Since you have taken the liberty of pretending you're a constitutional scholar I have the same right in pretending I am qualified to determine your mental state.

It may be they saw it coming considering her vast inexperience and the fact her last decision on the case was soundly defeated. Some people actually prepare for even the dumbest of court rulings.

All criminals should face legal penalties for their crimes. How does that work for you?

More lies from you. You seem to not be able to tell reality from the fantasy land between your ears.

Usually the appeals use what is in the decision. There is no advantage proceeding faster, prepared or not. The Trump team will likely take as much time as they are legally allowed.

Sadly all that you have in that space is dust. You have went to great lengths on this board to claim you know how the constitution applies to the law and court rulings. Now you claim that didn't happen. It would appear you're the one who can't separate fantasy from reality.

The crimes Hunter was convicted of should not be crimes. I suspect as the appeal works through, and when the Range decision comes out next year the convictions will get overturned.

There you go with all of that vast knowledge on court proceedings and legal maneuvering. So it couldn't be that one side wishes to speed up the process while the other side is trying to stall?

But please do continue to share your expertise.

So you think any crack head, meth head or heroin addict should be able to legally purchase a firearm? How about it being legal for them to to carry and conceal that firearm? And pray tell what are you basing that opinion on?

You see, at this point in time it is a crime. And Hunter was convicted for the crime which is on the books that he committed. Nothing about something you feel should be done in the future changes that.

The timing of the appeal surprised me as well. But it probably shouldn't. Jack Smith probably started thinking about this appeal a while ago. They knew that Cannon was and is a MAGA person. So it was only a matter of time.

I would assume that he wants this settled quickly so that a trial can be set. I'm not sure they have enough time before the election.

Yes. One side wishes to get this thing to trial and the other side wishes to stall for as long as possible.

It won't speed anything up in any appreciable way. Unless this is a simple 1 page "we intend to appeal" it is pointless to file early. If it is the appeal itself, it is stupid to rush.

Yes, self defense is a human right.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be. In light of Rahimi and what is likely to happen in Range we should see the rights restored.

Hunter uses trump ruling to ask to have his charges dismissed

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/18/hun...s-trump-classified-documents-ruling.html

I think Smith and the lawyers working with him probably looked at previous rulings and had already planned and started working on a few different scenarios. I am sure what Cannon did here was one of them.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...-and-whats-next-in-trump-documents-case/


NATION & WORLD
What the judge was thinking and what’s next in Trump documents case
Obama-era White House counsel says key point in Nixon decision should have ended inquiry

Liz Mineo

Harvard Staff Writer

July 17, 2024
7 min read
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed.

Smith’s team charged Trump with illegally retaining classified material after leaving the White House, including national security documents, and obstructing efforts by the government to retrieve them. The case was seen by many as the strongest of the major criminal cases against the ex-president, who appointed Cannon. Smith plans to appeal the ruling.

W. Neil Eggleston served as counsel to President Obama and is now a lecturer at the Law School. He offered his analysis of the Cannon ruling and weighed what’s next in the case in a conversation that has been edited for clarity and length.

Cannon ruled that the special counsel was appointed improperly. What was her legal reasoning?

It’s a mashup of statutory analysis and two constitutional principles — the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause. She looks at the provisions in the order appointing Smith that set forth the statutory basis for that appointment. She also looks at the statutes and concludes that the statutes do not authorize the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. She focuses on the fact that Smith was not a Department of Justice employee or officer at the time of the appointment — he was working at The Hague. It’s not clear to me why that matters, because today he’s a Department of Justice official. She infuses the analysis with lengthy discussions of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause.

Get the best of the Gazette delivered to your inbox
Email Address:

By subscribing to this newsletter you’re agreeing to our privacy policy

How would you characterize the decision?

In my view, her reading of the statutory provisions is quite stingy. Two other district courts and the D.C. Circuit have considered this issue — the legality of the special counsel — and they have all rejected it. Cannon is the only judge to find the appointment invalid. The D.C. Circuit has twice rejected a challenge to the use of special counsels — during the Iran-Contra investigation and during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Trump. Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District Court in D.C., who is a Trump appointee, tossed aside a similar challenge without a lot of effort in a fairly short opinion in a case involving Mueller, who oversaw the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia similarly tossed this issue aside in a case that also involved Mueller. So, the other courts that have looked at this issue have had no trouble with it and have ruled contrary to Cannon.

“I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me.”

What are the regulations under which special counsels are appointed?

Special counsels have been around for decades. From the 1970s until the late ’90s there was the independent counsel statute, which provided for a much more independent special prosecutor than what Attorney General [Merrick] Garland authorized in this matter. The Supreme Court upheld the statute in Morrison v. Olson, but it expired in 1999. After its expiration, DOJ implemented its own regulations providing for the appointment of special counsels who possess functions similar to U.S. attorneys. In 2020, in an Appointments Clause case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed Morrison v. Olson as a valid exception to a general rule about appointments.

What surprised you most about the decision?

One very surprising thing is how Cannon deals with the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Nixon. There’s a sentence in that 9-0 opinion which resolves this issue entirely. The sentence says that Archibald Cox, who was one of the prosecutors of Nixon, was appropriately appointed pursuant to the statute. And you would have thought that would have ended this inquiry. Cannon does something I think I’ve never seen a district judge do before, which is that she looks into the history of the Nixon case, decides the issue wasn’t particularly briefed, and as a result determines that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me.

In my seminar at Harvard Law School, I teach that portion of the Nixon opinion, and the beginning of it is essentially whether the matter is justiciable and whether the case is properly in the court, partially because it’s an intra-branch fight — it’s two parts of the executive branch that are litigating against each other. It was important to the court to point out that the special counsel was validly appointed and validly in the court, because if they thought he had not been, then the matter would not have been justiciable. The entire first part of the Nixon opinion is really about justiciability.

Cannon was appointed by Trump in 2020. Some observers say that judges shouldn’t be allowed to rule on the person who appointed them. What is your opinion?

That does not trouble me at all. Presidents appoint a lot of judges who then go off and make all sorts of decisions. This comes up in the administrative law context all the time, where district judges and appeals judges must rule on presidential policies. I don’t think most people think that the fact that they’ve been nominated by the person whose policy they’re now reviewing creates an appearance of impropriety. There is a lot of criticism about the way Cannon was handling the matter. I would not go so far as to say that she should not have taken the matter due to an appearance of impropriety.

Smith has said that he’s going to appeal. Can you talk about his likely strategy and whether the case might end up before the Supreme Court?

Smith’s appeal is going to be based on the issues we’re talking about. He’ll say that the judge’s reading of the authorizing statutes is wrong, and that in fact, the attorney general is entitled to appoint non-DOJ personnel to be special counsel. That’ll be the principal argument. Smith will also argue that the infused atmosphere of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause really has no place in the discussion. It’s a question of whether the statute permits it or doesn’t permit it. He’ll also raise the notion that essentially Nixon has already decided this case.

An appeal in the 11th Circuit would take roughly a year to decide. If Trump is elected president, after his inauguration he will certainly order the Department of Justice to dismiss the federal cases against him. The Department of Justice would then dismiss those cases and there would not be an appeal.

If Trump is not elected, there’s a strong chance that the 11th Circuit will reverse Cannon’s decision. Whichever way the 11th Circuit ruled, I suspect the issues would then be decided in the Supreme Court. I’m not going to predict what the Supreme Court would do.

Reading Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which is the case I think they are referring to I don't think the court intended reaffirm Morrison v. Olson. The case was about how the CFPB was organized and the removal of the Chief Executive in handling of the director. In the end the court vacated 9CA's affirmation and remanded it back down.

I don't have the time to pursue the entire 105 document, nor to go pursue the path of the case back at district or circuit to see what the ultimate decision was. I say this to say it looks like their take may be slanted. The phrase "I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me." shows that. District courts ignore SCOTUS all the time. In NY they allowed the subjective criteria tossed out in Bruen to be substituted by a different subjective criteria in direct conflict with SCOTUS saying subjective criteria is unconstitutional.

I agree with them that if Trump is elected this all goes away. I think the disposition of it if trump doesn't win will depend on how Trump handles things. If he tries a third time this won't go away, if he goes away I think the case does as well, but that really is a guess.

There you go with that constitutional law degree again. If the things you want to happen, happen, everyone will need to be packing all the time. But then that's your ultimate goal anyway.

Rhetoric over truth always with you.

He's actually offered a ton of insight, without bias. A strange rarity, I know, but you should appreciate it for what it is or read these boring documents yourself.

Especially since you're the dude that struts around here like he has a degree in everything from butterfly nets to rocket science.

I'm not the one that thinks heroin addicts, meth heads and crack heads should be able to legally purchase and carry firearms. And you are the one who is predicting constitutional cases. Don't backtrack now.

Yes, you think only you are qualified to own guns. Anyone else is too scary for you.

Notice how it is always worst case for you when you argue contrary but never when you agree? Example is trans children and notifying parents. I suppose you want predators to have unfettered access to children just because they are "educators".

BOOM

I think for the betterment of their mental health all children should have someone that they trust to confide in before it's too late. You on the other hand do not.

No, I think that parents should have a say in how it is handled.

Gaslighting 101. Great example for us all. And a reminder for ppl that think you might be engaged in honest debate.

Isn't that precious. All the vapid nonsense that comes from him and I am the gaslighter? Nice gaslight you got going.

No not really. That's you just trying to wiggle out of your post.

If you see Pit gaslighting - cut and paste and quote it. It's not hard. It's probably easier than name calling and all the other stuff you do.

Well, yesterday pit made a statement about all the horrible things at the RNC, yet never backed them up with anything other than "I'm not doing your homework for you."

Hi Arch - hoping you are well.

I didn't see that post. To be fair I don't read that many of Pit's posts - maybe 10% of them ... yeah I guess that's still a lot!! But I am not the board police - if I comment on Frank gaslighting it's because Frank was gaslighting. It's right there in black and white.... I don't expect you to quote or comment every time Eve makes a ridiculous post, or every time Frank name calls or gaslights ... or any other poster. Hopefully you won't expect me to comment on every silly comment by Pit, OCD, Daman or anyone else. .... and not commentating on any of those posts doesn't negate or invalidate my observation above.

And there it is again. The only thing consuming arch's mind is me. At least he isn't trying to charge me rent.

If you read 10% of his posts, you're probably very busy with reading.

Obsession by arch. Available now only at Macy's.

Someone feels the need to reply to every post every made. Most adults have a hobby or job that doesn't involve sitting in front of the computer and feeling the need to reply constantly. Then there's that one dud.

I keep forgetting that nobody can have a hobby after 3:00 or before 9:30 or be retired. I think that rule only applies in archlandia. Besides, my wife and I went to run some errands and have lunch just today. I normally don't discuss or brag about my private life but since you seem to genuinely concerned about my well being I thought I would let you know. I know I'm not saving the world by officiating some baseball or softball games like you do. All hail acrh!

Never said I was saving anything, mr. "my life revolves around replying in dawtalk." Thanks for you very limited contribution to life.

You have no idea what I contribute to others arch. But that's what you love to do. Try and make accusations about me that you have no clue about Mr. "let me tell you what to do with your free time".

For someone who isn't retired you seem to be finding time to post during working hours lately. But maybe that's what happens when you try to have a contracting business in BFE. You know what Republicans say. If you can't find work where you live, move to where the work is.

Hopefully that helps you understand how foolish you look trying to judge other people's lives. But I doubt and it and I won't be surprised by that. I'm not going anywhere arch. No matter how much you hate that.

Nice you got yer little fiend's back. I've quoted enough of his gaslighting and pointed it out enough. If you don't want to see it you won't.

Yet you can't see your own.