Trump classified documents case dismissed

By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor

Published: 14:58 BST, 15 July 2024 | Updated: 15:23 BST, 15 July 2024

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon has dramatically dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump in a bombshell ruling less than 48 hours after he was shot.

The former president was accused of taking highly sensitive national security documents to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House, and FBI agents seized a trove of material during a search of his Florida home in August 2022.

Judge Cannon threw the case out based on ‘violations’ of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause.

She claimed the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional.

The decision has an enormous impact on Trump’s legal battles, and he now faces just two criminal trials in Georgia and federal court in Washington D.C. A year ago, his classified documents case appeared to be his most serious legal threat: perhaps easier to prove that Trump’s January 6 case, which relied on public statements, tweets, and complex schemes involving electors around the country to charge a complex conspiracy to overturn the election.

The documents case, by contrast, followed a series of prosecutions of high level officials relying mostly on the discovery of materials in their possession. 

Trump is waiting to be sentenced in New York after he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records – with a sentencing date that was itself delayed after the Supreme Court issued a complex ruling on Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution on official acts taken as president.

The classified documents case against Donald Trump has been dismissed by a federal judge.

The bombshell ruling comes hours before the Republican National Convention is set to gavel in Monday, with Trump flying in Sunday to stage a heroic return from an assassination attempt.

Cannon’s ruling stunned legal observers, although she had revealed skepticism of the government’s position during a hearing on Trump’s claim that the special counsel’s appointment was unfounded. 

The ruling by the Trump-appointed judge comes amid complaints among Trump’s critics in legal circles that she took a long time making a series of procedural decisions that had the effect of stalling the case until the after the elections.

One of her recent decisions was to suspend a May trial date she had set months earlier amid disputes over evidence of classified national security documents.

The Justice Department could try to appeal the decision, having previously gotten an appeals court panel to overturn decisions by Cannon.

In December, the 11th Circuit vacated Judge Cannon’s ruling to appoint a special master who pored over classified materials seized from Mar-a-Lago in the case. 

Cannon was able to draw support from a concurring opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in Trump’s push for immunity from prosecution. The DOJ had argued it didn’t have bearing on the documents case.

FBI agents seized boxes of materials marked classified from Trump’s Florida club

Some of the documents removed from the White House were found in closets, storage areas, and even a bathroom used for storage

Trump has long attacked the special counsel, calling Jack Smith ‘deranged,’ and blasted the FBI search of his home

‘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,’ Thomas wrote.

In her 93-page ruling, Cannon ruled that the appointed of officers such as a special counsel reside in Congress, not the executive.

Attorney General Merrick Garland designated the special counsel in a move intended to provide isolation from charges of political interference had his office prosecuted the case directly. But Cannon was unpersuaded that authority existed, although special counsels have been used in a variety of high profile probes over the years. 

‘The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere—whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not. In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts,’ she wrote.

More to follow 

:
Trump classified documents case dismissed

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk