Hearing takes place at Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida
Judge Aileen Cannon scheduled hearing to address concerns over Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel in Trump case
Judge Cannon described as granting serious consideration to Trump's legal team arguments
Smith appointed by AG Merrick Garland in response to investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents
Trump's legal team argues Smith's appointment was unconstitutional due to lack of Senate approval
In recent developments in the ongoing legal battle between former President Donald J. Trump and the Department of Justice, Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a hearing to address concerns regarding the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The defense team for Trump argues that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional as he was not approved by the Senate like other federal officers.
The controversy surrounding this issue began when Trump's legal team raised this argument in relation to the classified documents case, which is notable because they did not make this claim during the election case. The hearing will take place at the Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Judge Cannon's handling of the case has been described as unusual by some legal scholars due to her willingness to grant serious consideration to far-fetched arguments from Trump's legal team. This includes challenges to Smith's appointment and other issues related to the case.
The special counsel, Jack Smith, was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in response to the investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents following his departure from the White House. The defense argues that Garland did not have the authority to make such an appointment without Senate approval. However, Smith's deputies contend that under the appointments clause of the Constitution, agency heads like Garland are authorized to name 'inferior officers' like special counsels as their subordinates.
The hearing is expected to provide further insight into this legal dispute and its implications for the ongoing case against Trump. It remains to be seen how Judge Cannon will rule on this matter.
Judge Aileen Cannon will hold three days of hearings in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
,
Special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump for allegedly stealing national security secrets is on trial Friday, but not in the way Smith intended.
Accuracy
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has punted the case indefinitely and seems many months away from preparing it to go before a jury.
Trump’s choice to challenge Smith’s constitutionality before Cannon is notable because his lawyers didn’t even raise that argument in the election case, which has been assigned to a less receptive judge in Washington, D.C., and is currently on hold while the Supreme Court weighs Trump’s bid for immunity.
The hearing comes as scrutiny of Cannon is at its apex. On Thursday, the New York Times reported that, when Cannon was initially assigned to preside over the case last year, two other judges urged her to step aside, but she refused.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author uses phrases like 'far-fetched bid', 'blatant example', 'unusual approach', and 'scuttle the case altogether' to express their opinion on the situation. They also focus on Trump's actions, such as his appointment of Judge Cannon and his challenge to Smith's authority, while downplaying or ignoring similar actions taken by other parties involved in the case. For example, they mention that 'numerous courts have rejected identical constitutional challenges to other special counsels', but they do not provide any details about these cases or their outcomes.
Her management of the case has frustrated the special counsel's team and prompted critics to accuse her of being in the tank for Trump.
The claim is a blatant example of her unusual approach.
This is a far-fetched bid by Trump to scuttle the case altogether.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author uses the phrase 'far-fetched bid' to describe Trump's constitutional challenge, implying that it is not a valid argument. However, this is an opinion and not a logical fallacy on the part of the author. The author also states that 'numerous courts have rejected nearly identical constitutional challenges to other special counsels.' This statement is an appeal to authority as it relies on the decisions of other courts without providing any reasoning or evidence as to why these decisions are relevant or persuasive in this case. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory language such as 'blatant example' and 'unusual approach' when describing Judge Cannon's management of the case, which is an attempt to sway the reader's opinion without providing any logical reasoning. There are no formal fallacies or dichotomous depictions in the article.
]The claim is a far-fetched bid by Trump to scuttle the case altogether.[
Numerous courts have rejected nearly identical constitutional challenges to other special couns.
Bias
(95%)
The article does not contain any clear examples of political, religious, ideological, or monetary bias. However, the author does use language that depicts Judge Cannon as being in the tank for Trump and her management of the case as unusual and frustrating to Smith's team. The author also mentions that critics have accused her of being biased towards Trump.
critics have accused her of being in the tank for Trump
The choice to allow outside lawyers to intervene in this way and present arguments on a purely legal issue is highly unusual at the district-court level.
The argument is based on a legal premise pushed in some conservative circles that the Senate should have approved Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
Accuracy
Smith’s team called that argument ‘far-fetched’ and ‘dubious.’
Trump's choice to challenge Smith’s constitutionality before Cannon is notable because his lawyers didn’t even raise that argument in the election case.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as the author only reports on the argument made by Trump's attorneys regarding the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel and Garland's authority to appoint him without Senate confirmation. The article does not provide any context or information about the merits of this argument or its relevance to the case against Trump. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation through sensationalism with phrases like 'long-shot argument', 'highly classified material', and 'former president Donald Trump's attorneys argued in federal court'. The author also uses editorializing language such as 'these hearings reflect Cannon’s tendency to allow in-person argument on many of the small and incremental legal questions she must decide, creating a backlog of key decisions and delaying the start of Trump’s trial.'
The long-shot argument is based on a legal premise pushed in some conservative circles that the Senate should have approved Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the federal investigations against Trump.
The judge, a Trump nominee who has been on the bench since late 2020, has indefinitely postponed Trump’s trial from its original May start date.
There is an unusual decision by Cannon to allow three outside attorneys to argue about the legality of Smith’s appointment this afternoon.
Trump's legal team argues that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland doesn’t have the authority to appoint Special Counsel Jack Smith without Senate approval.
Accuracy
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all felony charges, including Espionage Act violations.
Judge Aileen Cannon will hold three days of hearings in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Trump was indicted by the Department of Justice in June 2023 for mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them.
Smith’s team says the establishment of special counsels is a routine internal Justice Department process well within the attorney general’s discretion and control.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author, Rachel Dobkin, makes no direct assertions of bias towards any particular side in this article. However, she does quote former Republican Judge John E. Jones III making critical comments about U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of the Trump classified documents case. While these comments are not biased in and of themselves, they do paint a picture of Cannon being indecisive and getting lost in the minutiae of the case, which could be perceived as negative by some readers. The author does not express any personal opinion on this matter beyond reporting Jones' comments.
The defense argues that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed charges in the case, was improperly funded and appointed.
Trump's choice to challenge Smith’s constitutionality before Cannon is notable because his lawyers didn’t even raise that argument in the election case.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon presides over a hearing on Friday in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Judge Cannon has made a number of decisions that have prompted second-guessing and criticism among legal scholars following the case.
Mr. Smith’s deputies argue that under the appointments clause of the Constitution, agency heads like Attorney General Merrick Garland are authorized to name ‘inferior officers’ like special counsels to act as their subordinates.
