Breaking now on Fox
🚨BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon has DISMISSED the Trump/classified documents case saying that Jack Smith’s appointment by Biden’s DOJ was unconstitutional. pic.twitter.com/hINiZW84DG
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 15, 2024
Quote:
A federal judge tossed out the criminal classified documents case against Donald Trump, ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the appointments clause of the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued the ruling today. Trump had been charged with withholding documents and obstructing justice after he left the White House.
jack smith didn't voluntarily dismiss it - judge cannon threw it out. now....will the feds appeal? before the weekend, I'd say yes. now....???fullback44 said:
I guess they are feeling WAY WAY too much heat for what just went down, trying to throw a bone to calm things down… it's probably too late after what just happened
Was about to post the same thing.P.H. Dexippus said:
It appears that someone read the Thomas concurrence
sanangelo said:🚨BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon has DISMISSED the Trump/classified documents case saying that Jack Smith’s appointment by Biden’s DOJ was unconstitutional. pic.twitter.com/hINiZW84DG
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 15, 2024
It seems they are asking R's to "tone down their rhetoric".4stringAg said:
Good. Never should have been filed to begin with.
It'll be interesting to see the gnashing of teeth from Dems and their rhetoric in light of what happened over the weekend.
Could you explain? I dont know what he said...P.H. Dexippus said:
It appears that someone read the Thomas concurrence
But, some people were so ADAMANT it was frivolous to allege this...aggiehawg said:
So that Ed Meese amicus had the legs I thought it did. Also didn't make sense that Trump would receive inel briefings while under indictment for espionage.
Yee-haw!
fullback44 said:
I guess they are feeling WAY WAY too much heat for what just went down, trying to throw a bone to calm things down… it's probably too late after what just happened
Agree. When I first read that Meese amicus brief raising this issue, I found it quite persuasive and solid.AtticusMatlock said:
This appears to be the appropriate legal decision. It's not going to stop screams of bias.
AgGrad99 said:Could you explain? I dont know what he said...P.H. Dexippus said:
It appears that someone read the Thomas concurrence
She held a three day hearing on this issue a few weeks back, so you are correct in that it had been in the works since then.Bunk Moreland said:fullback44 said:
I guess they are feeling WAY WAY too much heat for what just went down, trying to throw a bone to calm things down… it's probably too late after what just happened
This wasn't whipped up over the weekend. The judge was likely working on this for weeks or months. The timing of the convention this week is more likely for the drop today. Big win for all. Except Jack(ass) Smith
MiamiHopper said:
Finally. Now get this in front of a judge that knows what they are doing.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdfAgGrad99 said:Could you explain? I dont know what he said...P.H. Dexippus said:
It appears that someone read the Thomas concurrence
Quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23939
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[July 1, 2024]
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.
Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. As the Court forcefully explains, the Framers "deemed an energetic executive essential to . . . the security of liberty," and our "system of separated powers" accordingly insulates the President from prosecution for his official acts. Ante, at 10, 42 (internal quotation marks omitted). To conclude otherwise would hamstring the vigorous Executive that our Constitution envisions. "While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty." Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 710711 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been "established by Law," as the Constitution requires. Art. II, 2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices "by Law," the Constitution imposes an important check against the President he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President...