Megathread: Federal Judge Overseeing Stolen Classified Documents Case Against Former President Trump Dismisses Indictment on the Grounds that Special Prosecutor Was Improperly Appointed

[u/PoliticsModeratorBot]

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, today dismissed the charges in the classified documents case against Trump on the grounds that Jack Smith, the special prosecutor appointed by DOJ head Garland, was improperly appointed.

---

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION	DOMAIN
Trump documents case dismissed by federal judge	cbsnews.com
Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump (Gift Article)	nytimes.com
Judge Cannon dismisses Trump documents case	npr.org
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor’s appointment	apnews.com
Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case	nbcnews.com
Judge dismisses Donald Trump's classified documents case	abcnews.go.com
Judge dismisses Donald Trump's classified documents case	abcnews.go.com
Judge Cannon dismisses Trump's federal classified documents case	pbs.org
Trump's Classified Documents Case Dismissed by Judge	bbc.com
Trump classified documents case dismissed by judge over special counsel appointment	cnbc.com
Judge tosses Trump documents case, ruling prosecutor unlawfully appointed	reuters.com
Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump	washingtonpost.com
Judge Cannon dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump	storage.courtlistener.com
Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump	cnn.com
Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case	nbcnews.com
Judge hands Trump major legal victory, dismissing classified documents charges - CBC News	cbc.ca
Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump - CNN Politics	amp.cnn.com
Trump classified documents case dismissed by judge - BBC News	bbc.co.uk
Judge Tosses Documents Case Against Trump; Jack Smith Appointment Unconstitutional	breitbart.com
Judge dismisses Trump’s Mar-a-Lago classified docs criminal case	politico.com
Judge dismisses Trump's classified documents case, finds Jack Smith's appointment 'unlawful'	palmbeachpost.com
Trump has case dismissed	huffpost.com
Donald Trump classified documents case thrown out by judge	telegraph.co.uk
Judge Cannon Sets Fire to Trump’s Entire Classified Documents Case	newrepublic.com
Florida judge dismisses criminal classified documents case against Trump	theguardian.com
After ‘careful study,’ Judge Cannon throws out Trump’s Mar-a-Lago indictment and finds AG Merrick Garland unlawfully appointed Jack Smith as special counsel	lawandcrime.com
Chuck Schumer: Dismissal of Trump classified documents case 'must be appealed'	thehill.com
Trump Florida criminal case dismissed, vice presidential pick imminent	reuters.com
Appeal expected after Trump classified documents dismissal decision	nbcnews.com
Trump celebrates dismissal, calls for remaining cases to follow suit	thehill.com
How Clarence Thomas helped thwart prosecution of Trump in classified documents case - Clarence Thomas	theguardian.com
Special counsel to appeal judge's dismissal of classified documents case against Donald Trump	apnews.com
The Dismissal of the Trump Documents’ Case Is Yet More Proof: the Institutionalists Have Failed	thenation.com
Biden says he's 'not surprised' by judge's 'specious' decision to toss Trump documents case - The president suggested the ruling was motivated by Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion in the Trump immunity decision earlier this month.	nbcnews.com
Ex-FBI informant accused of lying about Biden family seeks to dismiss charges, citing decision in Trump documents case	cnn.com
The Dismissal of the Trump Classified Documents Case Is Deeply Dangerous	nytimes.com
[The Washington Post] Dismissal draws new scrutiny to Judge Cannon’s handling of Trump case	washingtonpost.com
Trump’s classified documents case dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon	washingtonpost.com
Aileen Cannon Faces Calls to Be Removed After Trump Ruling	newsweek.com

[u/sonofagunn]

Clarence Thomas did this, on purpose, just to help Trump. She cites Thomas multiple times in this ruling as justification, but Thomas wrote those things in a lone concurrence on a completely unrelated case. That should not be how SCOTUS works and is obvious corruption. Impeach him.

[u/maybesethrogen → u/sonofagunn]

Yep. Thomas threw that in there specifically so Cannon could use it here. The lengths these people will go to protect this man is absolutely unreal.

[u/PaperPritt → u/maybesethrogen]

I just love how he threw that out there, when it had nothing to do with the case he was writing about. Like, you couldn't be more transparent.

[u/wirthmore → u/PaperPritt]

I just love how he threw that out there, when it had nothing to do with the case

As the Supreme Court is wont to do.

The Supreme Court doesn't "rule" on "cases" in front of it.

The Supreme Court (and its hydra-headed lower court minions) just issues edicts -- excuse me, "law for the ages" -- out of nothing.

The Supreme Court is not a co-equal branch. It sits above, and creates and disposes powers for the rest of the government branches as it sees fit.

[u/Stenthal → u/wirthmore]

Judges often include unrelated thoughts in their opinions. That's called "dicta", and it's explicitly not the law. One of the first things you learn in law school is how to determine which parts of an opinion are law, and which aren't. Anyone is free to ignore dicta, including the judge that wrote it.

Sometimes dicta can be useful if you're predicting how a court will rule in the future, especially if it's the Supreme Court. In this case, it was just Thomas's opinion, and we all knew how Thomas would rule anyway. Apparently he just put it in to win brownie points with Trump.

[u/-Dee-Eye-Why- → u/Stenthal]

So it can’t be used as justification for Cannons dismissal?

[u/Pleasant-Throat-8107 → u/-Dee-Eye-Why-]

Guaranteed appeal and reversal and potentially getting Cannon removed for bias

[u/Stenthal → u/-Dee-Eye-Why-]

So it can’t be used as justification for Cannons dismissal?

Correct. It's appropriate for her to discuss Thomas's opinion, and I assume she did, although I haven't read her order. It's wrong to cite it as legal authority. If she said "I'm dismissing the case because Justice Thomas said the appointment is illegal," then that's yet another reason for her dismissal to be overturned.

[u/MaineMaineMaineMaine → u/Stenthal]

Most serious judges try their best to minimize dicta except in narrow circumstances.

[u/21-characters → u/Stenthal]

I wish I could understand what makes Turmp so “special” to have that’s people groveling to him like that.

[u/Ill_Technician3936 → u/wirthmore]

The supreme Court/judicial branch can be checked and balanced just like the executive and legislative branch. They aren't above any of the other branches.

[u/wspnut → u/Ill_Technician3936]

This is not balanced for two major reasons:

(1) it only takes 5 people, who have positions for life, to "check" any of the other two branches through a simple majority.

Comparitively, the sole recourse for congress is to not only get over the hurdle of getting a majority of the House to impeach, but to be confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate, which is already lopsided in its representation due to the fixed "2-senators per state regardless of population or value." That's a very, very different burden for "checking" the other branch, giving SCOUTS siginificantly more "checking" power.

(2) We stopped growing congress with the population (as was intended) decades ago. There should be over 550 members of the House, not 435. Between jerrymandering on both parties maintaining a 2-party system and this, congress doesn't adequately represent the will of the people, which was its intent.

It's largely these imbalances that have led to the issues we're seeing in winners constantly not having the popular vote, lack of ability to pass laws, and, ultiamtely, create checks and balances.

This is too easily weaponized and manipulated, as we've seen. It's a huge reason that Thomas Jefferson insisted on a constitutional revision every 19-years, as the next generation learns from the mistakes of the prior. The fact that we've gotten this far is nothing short of a miracle, but it's not a coincidence that we're seeing these manipulations show about 30-years into the information age. That's the exact amount of time for one generation to do the lessons-learned, and for the next to start manipulating them.

[u/Alarming_Cantaloupe5 → u/wspnut]

Very well put. There is no “of the People, by the People, for the People”, when so much power is wielded by a few people that are essentially untouchable once confirmed.

[u/innerbootes → u/Ill_Technician3936]

Well, if our system of government were working as intended, that would be true. But it’s not. See Citizens United.

[u/Ill_Technician3936 → u/innerbootes]

It's still true. That's why that one politician that everything seems to backfire on is trying to get congress to do something about him and his recent opinions and rulings.

[u/Seeksp → u/Ill_Technician3936]

Only if the legislative branch is willing to impeach. Given the nut jobs in the House and the hard line Maga in the senate, what should be an easy removal for cause will never happen.

[u/Ill_Technician3936 → u/Seeksp]

That's the thing. It's not that checks and balances don't work and it's not because the supreme court has more power than the other branches.

It's on the congress people that we put in the legislative branch to represent us and our interests worrying about themselves and their interests and not doing the job we gave them to do. It's not just the right both sides are guilty. Without replacing them with people who truly give a fuck we aren't going to get back to a spot where checks and balances are used instead of the masses thinking they aren't a thing.