Special Poll
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the criminal charges against former President Trump related to the mishandling of classified documents. The decision was based on the finding that Special Counsel Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed.
This dismissal marks a significant win for Trump, being the first complete dismissal among his four criminal cases.
Judge Cannon concluded that no federal law sanctioned Smith’s appointment. She emphasized the importance of the Appointments Clause, which plays a crucial role in the separation of powers by ensuring Congress has a say in appointing inferior officers. Cannon argued that Smith’s appointment overstepped this boundary, transferring significant power to a department head and thereby threatening the foundational liberty that the separation of powers aims to protect.
Following a thorough review, Cannon found no legal provision granting the attorney general the authority to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial powers that Smith possessed.
Trump, who faced 40 charges linked to his alleged mishandling of classified information and efforts to obstruct the retrieval of these records post-presidency, had pleaded not guilty. This ruling comes shortly after an attempted assassination attempt against Trump.
In response to the dismissal, Trump expressed his views on Truth Social, urging for the dismissal of other cases against him, referring to them as “witch hunts.”
Judge Cannon’s ruling resonates with the concerns of Justice Clarence Thomas, a leading conservative voice on the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the legitimacy of such appointments. Cannon referenced Thomas’s opinions multiple times in her ruling.
Thomas had previously noted that any unprecedented prosecution must be conducted by someone duly authorized by the American people, urging lower courts to address the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding further.
The special counsel’s office has not yet commented on the ruling.
During a hearing last month, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, examined the legality of the special counsel’s appointment and allowed external parties to present arguments, which is atypical.
While Cannon’s decision directly impacts this case, it also casts doubt on other special counsel appointments. However, she clarified that her ruling is specific to this case. Notably, Trump’s legal team did not challenge the special counsel’s authority in another case concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
In parallel, a different special counsel has been investigating Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son. This investigation led to Biden’s conviction on federal gun charges, with another trial expected in September.
Cannon’s ruling also dismisses charges against Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, involved in the classified documents case.