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

The only assertion I made is that the DOJ has been appointing special prosecutors without congressional approval for over 30 years now. Now you want to try and make it some constitutional argument. If what you're saying is true no special counsel investigation for over 30 years has been legal either. Yet they have never been challenged in court successfully before. That's why everyone saw this as a long shot at best. Now you go explain what "is, is" too someone who cares.

The argument as best I understand it is that the head of the DOJ is approved by congress to conduct any and all business that DOJ conducts. So by extension it's the head of the DOJ to appoint special prosecutors without needing any congressional approval to do so.

Pit@dawgtalkers just being Pit@dawgtalkers.

Is that you arch? Can you explain how it's not true that the head of the DOJ has been naming special prosecutors for over 30 years without congressional approval and now suddenly it's different?

I didn't think so. Just more typical trash talk by your kind.

You said this. Please spin now.

What part of this are you missing? The claim is that the appointment of jack smith didn't go through congress and therefore was somehow unconstitutional. Yet this is the protocol that has been used for over 30 years now. How did you not understand what I was saying here?

As was stated, people thought this was a long shot to begin with since the precedent has been set for over 30 years and many feel it will be overturned by the court of appeals.

A protocol that is wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter if that is how it has been done. Do you think the government is going to put in their brief "we've been doing it so it is good"?

"Many feel" is code for you were told what to think. I didn't ask what many think, I asked what you think will be in the brief that gets this in front of CA11.

I have seen both sides and decided based on what I have seen what to think. Try it some time. Yes, every attorney that has represented every client for over 30 now that has been investigated by a special prosecutor and every judge during that time has gotten it wrong and some very green, inexperienced judge finally got it right.

Stop pretending that you or I either one are qualified to debate constitutional law. The very thought of that concept sounds foolish.

Over 30? Days? Dogs?

So we should have discussions on things we arent qualified on? That's gonna kill yer post counts.

Until the question of special prosecutors and how they are appointed is asked it won't be answered. This will be an interesting watch, and I don't have thoughts yet on how it will go. But I didn't make a prognostication either.

j/c

My two cents: There's been a lot of blurring of the lines and legal gymnastics over the past few years.

Special Counsel appointments from 1999-2019? ONE
Special Counsel appointments over the last five years? FIVE

Maybe a return to protocol is in order.

The last time one of her decisions was challenged it was overruled. I don't think this time will be any different.

So are you saying that since the numbers are in contrast that a different protocol was used by which special prosecutors were appointed?

Here. I'll just try to paint an elementary picture for everything you respond to, at least until it grates on my nerves (probably sooner than later).

Let's say there is a law that says you can't back out of your driveway onto an interstate. Lots of people do it, but nobody ever gets hurt, so the law is hardly ever enforced.

So, if it becomes more and more common, and it starts causing more accidents, do you think maybe those enforcing the law may return to protocol??


Examples of this are literally everywhere you look, and have been your entire life. Something gets carried away, the powers-that-be reel things back in by enforcing according to the letter of the law.

Comprende? Or need more examples?

j/c
I am being lazy. I'm not reading through all the posts and a lot of snark.

Are people advocating that it's a good thing that the case against Trump has been thrown out? Whether or not it is/was on a technicality - or because the Judge is a Trump supporter - or because of immunity ? Whatever the reason ... are people thinking this is a good thing?

That was your claim yesterday too. Yet here you still are.


Yes, that's the same thing as refusing to obey a subpoena to turn over classified documents. The same thing as trying to stop the certification of an election.


There's only one problem here. None of the things trump has done were "common" either. Those accidents you refer to are the things trump has done. Not that he has been called out for them. And if not they will become common. and now, after the SCOTUS ruling, if trump is re-elected you'll see just how common it becomes.



Yes. You tried to act like the things trump did were "common" and that it didn't hurt free elections, nobody actually got hurt "backing out of their driveway" on Jan. 6th and presidents have done such things all the time. "Lots of people do it".

Yes, I see the absurdity of your example.

Nevermind - it's obviously January 6 time again.

Isn't that one of the things a special prosecutor was assigned to investigate? Election interference which included everything from Jan. 6th to pressuring An election official in Georgia to "finding votes" to fake electors? So you brought up special prosecutor appointments. In return I bought up one of the very things he was assigned to do and now you're the one acting like that was never a part of it?

Somehow I'm not surprised by that or the fact you would characterize the things trump is being investigated for as backing out of a driveway onto a highway. But hey man, you do you.

and actually there's the part about defying a subpoena for months I brought up too. You know, like backing out of a driveway onto a highway.

Every judge has had a decision overturned. It happens.


By challenge do you mean a request for appellate review, or that the appellate review actually happened? What is her long term track record? How many decisions has she had reversed vs affirmed

The government shouldn't break the law to prosecute you, no matter who you are.


Did you see the Alec Baldwin fiasco? ugh.

What long term track record? Do you have any idea how many cases he tried before she was appointed to her current position? Not assisted in but was actually the primary counsel?

Of the 224 cases she presided over, only four had gone to trial before trump appointed here. she had presided over a grand total of four criminal trials. How much of a long term track record do you think that represents?

He? She? Counsel? What disjointed nonsense is this?

He's having a really hard time expressing himself today. When he is effective, he's spouting off on tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Good luck.

At some point a Google search will get him a headline to post that might have something to do with, ya know, the thing.

What laws did they break other than one what a judge who has presided over a total of four criminal trials, whose last decision in this same trial was overturned claims was not the proper is claiming that is awaiting appeal?



Yes I did. I wish it would have gone to trial so he could have beaten the charges outright.

Much like yourself I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out. But in saying that, earlier you said you hadn't made a prognostication either. Now it seems as though have have arrived at such a conclusion.

Sadly that's all either of you have to offer. No substance or ability to dispute that she only conducted four felony trials, just gibberish. How sad.

Says the man who compared trying to steal an election and refusing to honor a subpoena after he left office to backing out of a driveway onto a highway. Mmmmm hmmm..

I had to dumb it down for you. You still couldn't understand. Aka Wednesday.

If the executive does something that they aren't allowed to do legally they broke the law. This seems to be the underpinning of this ruling. Didn't have one of your outrage sites mention that huh?

You must mean you posted something dumb that makes no sense in a feeble attempt to make a point which doesn't exist. I mean if you're aiming for accuracy. So now your looking to blame me that you posted something stupid that made no sense? Typical.

At least you're finally stepping up to the plate that you're making a prognostication based on an very inexperienced judge initial ruling. And by reading your post it's obvious which one of us is becoming outraged. But this is how you start to become in discussions when you get frustrated. Any disagreement and you claim is created out of outrage. And opposing views you claim must come from outrage. this is how our discussions usually end ahen yo begin to let the rhetoric take over. And up to this point you were dong so much better. But we all know where it's headed from here.

So can you explain where the fact that she has conducted a total of four felony trials is outrage instead of a fact? I didn't think so. But somehow you think attaching a negative label to facts somehow makes them less credible. It doesn't. Can you explain why you think a very inexperienced judge underpinning of her ruling will somehow be upheld by a standard no judge or attorney has successfully fought in over 30 years?

Something tells me that you're not really looking forward to seeing how this will all play out because you have chosen to think a very inexperienced judges ruling which nobody else has seemed to rule in over 30 years is now the standard.

It is my understanding that the use of a special council has already been litigated and ruled legal
So this ruling goes against precedent.

Heard a lawyer talking that if this somehow gets upheld that Hunter can use the dsame argument to get his conviction overturned

That's what I've heard as well but really haven't looked up a source to try and confirm it yet. But after reading these replies, do you really think that would make any difference to them?

So then is the point of the ruling an attempt to draw a line between what can be prosecuted by a special counsel and what can't?

This videos does a nice job of explaining

What it basically does is mix the legislative branch with the judicial branch by requiring a president or congress to be involved in the appointment of a special prosecutor. Cannon's ruling said regulations do not allow a special counsel with as much authority as Smith to be appointed without presidential or congressional involvement.

So which ever party is in power could block anyone within their own party from being investigated by any special counsel or special prosecutor.

Another one explaining

At this point you are simply making things up, naw, you are stooping to lying. You have no idea what my emotional state is (you aren't professionally qualified to determine that), I am not outraged, you aren't important enough for that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/trump-classified-documents-dismissal-appeal

Special counsel Jack Smith appeals dismissal of Trump classified files case

Criminal case, tossed by Florida judge, accused ex-president of illegally stashing documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence
Guardian staff and agency
Wed 17 Jul 2024 16.09 EDT
Last modified on Wed 17 Jul 2024 16.59 EDT

US prosecutors on Wednesday formally appealed a federal judge’s decision just two days ago to throw out the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of illegally stashing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence and elsewhere after leaving the White House in 2021.

The office of special counsel Jack Smith filed a notice in court in Florida indicating it would ask the 11th US circuit court of appeals, based in Atlanta, to revive the case and reverse the 15 July ruling by the Florida-based US district judge Aileen Cannon, who unexpectedly decided that Smith had been unlawfully appointed in the first place by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.

Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president in 2020 during his one-term presidency, ruled that Smith’s 2022 appointment by the Department of Justice violated the US constitution.
a side-by-side image of Donald Trump, classified documents and Aileen Cannon
Florida judge dismisses criminal classified documents case against Trump
Read more
The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

She argued the violation was because the US Congress did not authorize Garland to name a special counsel with the degree of power and independence wielded by Smith.

The decision shocked many legal experts and was the latest in a series of legal victories for Trump, in his series of cases and following his conviction in a New York criminal case earlier this year. The US supreme court ruled on 1 July that Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for official actions taken as president.

The supreme court’s ruling has had a domino effect on the other charges Trump faces, with a delay to sentencing in the New York hush-money trial in which he was convicted of 34 felonies. Trump has also used the ruling to try to block evidence and delay hearings on the election subversion charges brought by Smith.

Trump still falsely claims he won the 2020 presidential election, not Joe Biden, claims and related actions that have landed Trump in court in Washington DC and Georgia on election interference charges.

Cannon’s decision broke with decades of rulings by other federal courts that have upheld the authority of the attorney general to empower a special counsel to handle politically sensitive investigations.

The practice has been used for decades by administrations of both political parties. Special counsels have also investigated Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

But her decision aligned with arguments Trump’s lawyers have made and with Clarence Thomas, the US supreme court justice, who wrote in a concurring opinion to the presidential immunity ruling that the special counsel didn’t have the authority to pursue the case. Cannon cited his concurrence in her ruling multiple times. It is part of a pattern where Thomas’s writings signal to the rightwing legal world potential strategies and theories to use in court.
skip past newsletter promotion


Cannon’s ruling dismissed the charges against Trump and co-defendants Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Trump, and Carlos De Oliveira, a property manager at Mar-a-Lago, where the documents were found during an FBI search.

Trump was accused of illegally retaining sensitive national security documents, including records related to the US nuclear program, and Trump and the two co-defendants also were accused of obstructing the federal investigation, which they all deny.

Six of the 12 active judges on the 11th circuit were appointed by Trump. The 11th circuit has dealt Trump a defeat earlier over the classified documents case. In 2022, before the charges were filed, a three-judge 11th circuit panel reversed a ruling by Cannon to appoint a third-party “special master” to vet evidence FBI agents seized during a search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.

Reuters contributed reporting

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism as we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes in 2024.

With the potential of another Trump presidency looming, there are countless angles to cover around this year’s election – and we'll be there to shed light on each new development, with explainers, key takeaways and analysis of what it means for America, democracy and the world.

Having read the decision, she makes good points on structural issues. There was a statue that allowed this, it expired. The DOJ just made a rule to replace the statue, taking the authority away from Congress in doing so. She did not seem base anything on Loper, which is not surprising as it is freshly minted and this would have been written and been in the polishing portion when Loper was released.

A appellate court may attack her some of her definitions, but she's not wrong on the DOJ promulgating a rule so that Congress didn't have to do their job is the incorrect way to go about a constitutional duty. An appeal is going to be an uphill fight, especially with Loper being precedent that will be cited in that phase.

As an aside, I do find her writing too long winded and her sometimes familiar tone off putting. You are writing a legal opinion, not a letter to your camp counselor.

My only surprise in the appeal is it was this quick. It seems they like to take their full 60 days to get it done to put out what they think is best.

This reminds me of when Trump was first in office creating chaos - things Trump supporters justified were things they would have lost their minds over if Obama had done them. If this boot was on the other foot and the SC wrote an additional footnote on how Hunter or Joe or some other Senior Dem could "get off" on a technicality ... there would not be the relish and embrace by you and others we see now. Period.