With the dramatic flair of a political thriller, Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown out the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump concerning classified documents. This dismissal, rooted in the illegal appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith, has sent shockwaves across both legal and political circles. It’s a major blow to the Biden administration and the Department of Justice, calling into question the legitimacy of the entire investigation.
The crux of this issue lies in the constitutional validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel. Judge Cannon’s verdict underscored that Smith’s position violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that principal officers must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Cannon emphasized how crucial this clause is to maintaining separation of powers, noting, “The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in turn threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”
HUGE NEWS: The Biden DOJ's classified documents case against Trump IS NOW DISMISSED.
Judge Cannon ruled the special counsel appointment was unconstitutional.
This was their "strongest" Trump case. pic.twitter.com/FPz04TGcNS
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 15, 2024
The case sprang from a grand jury indictment on June 8, 2023, where Trump was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information. Additional conspiracy and concealment charges were also laid against his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The indictment later swelled to 42 charges in a superseding indictment. Trump’s legal team fought tooth and nail arguing that Smith’s appointment breached constitutional requirements, asserting that an officer like the Special Counsel must be appointed “by law” and should be a principal officer subject to Senate confirmation.
Judge Cannon concurred, pointing out that none of the statutes cited by the Special Counsel’s office empowered the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel with the full powers of a United States Attorney. This harsh critique questioned not just the legality of Smith’s appointment but also the broader implications for the separation of powers within the federal government.
This ruling is as entwined with the constitutional framework as a strand of DNA in a forensic lab. The court found that Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, although it didn’t address the remedy for this funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
Interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas had previously questioned Jack Smith’s authority in his concurring opinion on the presidential immunity ruling, asserting that a private citizen could not criminally prosecute anyone without a duly established office by law.
This decision doesn’t just bring an end to Jack Smith’s prosecution—it sends a powerful message about the need to adhere to constitutional principles, even in politically charged cases. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role in appointing Smith has now come under intense scrutiny, with questions about whether due process was followed.
As this legal shockwave reverberates through the political arena, Trump’s supporters are hailing the dismissal as vindication, while critics grapple with its implications. The Biden administration and DOJ will need to rethink their strategies in prosecuting high-profile cases, ensuring they meticulously observe constitutional requirements.
Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump stands as a landmark ruling. It highlights the delicate balance of power within the federal government and reaffirms the vital role of the Constitution in guiding legal processes.
Leave a Comment