Editorials & Other Articles

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(112,334 posts) Wed Jul 24, 2024, 07:56 PM Jul 24

Judge Cannon's flawed dismissal of Trump's indictment ignored important precedent Opinion

In July, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed the indictment of Donald Trump for mishandling national security information — remember the pictures of boxes stored in his bathroom?

She did so because Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the prosecution, had been a private citizen before being appointed by the U.S. attorney general. The appointment, Cannon ruled, was therefore unconstitutional.

In so ruling, Judge Cannon defied a 1974 Supreme Court decision, “U.S. v. Nixon,” that was directly on point.

A lawyer in private practice was appointed by President Richard Nixon’s attorney general to be special prosecutor in the Watergate case. Close associates of the president were indicted for obstructing justice. The special prosecutor subpoenaed documents from the president, who objected, claiming the documents were “privileged” — they could not be subpoenaed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-cannon-flawed-dismissal-trump-164606950.html

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Cannon's flawed dismissal of Trump's indictment ignored important precedent Opinion (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 24 OP

The "legal technicality" should be explicitly stated. Igel Jul 24 #1

Igel

(35,862 posts)

1. The "legal technicality" should be explicitly stated.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Jul 24, 2024, 09:56 PM

Jul 24

It's buried.

0 In the midst of the Watergate controversy, Elliot Richardson, whose nomination to be Attorney General
was being considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, agreed to name an independent
special prosecutor to pursue the Watergate allegations.21 Once confirmed by the Senate, the
Attorney General, under his own authority, appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor for the
Watergate investigation in 1973.

Source.

That's the point that was being argued--judiciability aside, the appointment was not proper under the Appointments Clause. This question was not strictly before the courts in the previous decisions. To what extent that matters isn't for me to decide. Smith's argument was that the Appointments Clause just didn't apply because he wasn't an officer in the original meaning of the clause (which, strictly speaking, smacks of originalism, I'd note).

I take no side in this; I merely point out what the question that the two sides must take sides over.

Reply to this discussion