Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Again
... And it seems to be the proper decision by the Judge. 
#### Salty |
Most of those in the legal profession would disagree with you.
"Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to throw out serious national-security criminal charges in the classified documents case against Donald Trump is legally unsupported, ignores decades of precedent and is deeply dangerous.
Her decision is quite unlikely to survive the tests of time, or even the appeal Mr. Smith’s office said he intends to make. But it will further delay a case that has moved so slowly under her direction that it was already virtually certain it would never go to a jury before Election Day.
Judge Cannon asserts that no law of Congress authorizes the special counsel. That is palpably false. The special counsel regulations were drafted under specific congressional laws authorizing them.
Since 1966, Congress has had a specific law, Section 515, giving the attorney general the power to commission attorneys “specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice” as “special assistant[s] to the attorney general or special attorney[s].” Another provision in that law said that a lawyer appointed by the attorney general under the law may “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal,” that other U.S. attorneys are “authorized by law to conduct.”
Yet another part of that law, Section 533, says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” These sections were specifically cited when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Smith as a special counsel. If Congress doesn’t like these laws, it can repeal them. But until then, the law is the law.
Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case). It is true that one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, recently wrote a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case questioning the legality of the position of special counsel. No other justice joined that opinion, and even Justice Thomas did not come to the conclusions that Judge Cannon did — he simply raised “essential questions” about the office. And his questions ignored a well-trod tradition in America as well as the statutory landscape."
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...mp-classified/
As I said in another thread, this is a technicality. It in no way says Trump is innocent of the charges. At the very least, a new special counsel should be appointed with approval of Congress and the trial should go on, hopefully with a new judge. But Eileen Cannon has accomplished her obvious goal of delaying the trial, the most damaging trial against Trump, beyond election day.
