Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents case on Monday.
Legal experts and the public are debating whether this is a victory for Trump or an ignoring of precedent.
The dismissal was based on the argument that special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was not authorized by Congress.
In a stunning development, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents case on Monday, citing that special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was not authorized by Congress. The decision has sparked widespread debate among legal experts and the public alike. Some argue that Judge Cannon's ruling is a victory for Trump, who faces multiple legal challenges including a pending criminal case in Georgia related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election and a civil case where he was found liable for sexual assault. Others contend that the judge's decision ignores Supreme Court precedent and statute text regarding appointment and funding of special counsels. The dismissal has also raised questions about the impartiality of the federal judiciary, with some critics suggesting that individual judges are no longer arbiters but rather extensions of political parties. As the fallout from Judge Cannon's ruling continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on Trump's legal battles and the broader debate over the role of politics in the U.S. justice system.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday, citing that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was not authorized by Congress.
,
Accuracy
Cannon’s ruling could upend the longstanding practice of appointing special counsels to independently conduct investigations and bring charges.
Trump faces multiple legal cases including a pending criminal case in Georgia on attempts to overturn the 2020 election there and a civil case where he was found liable for sexual assault.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author quotes legal experts who agree with their perspective and dismisses the ruling of Judge Aileen Cannon as 'bizarre' without providing any evidence to back up this claim. The article also uses emotional manipulation by describing Trump's legal threats as 'serious'.
The decision -- a major victory for Trump on the heels of the Supreme Court decision that broadened the scope of presidential immunity -- not only sidelined the former president’s documents case, but also could upend the longstanding practice of appointing special counsels to independently conduct investigations and bring charges.
It was in February that Trump’s team first filed their motion to dismiss the case based on Smith’s appointment. Five months later, following a two-day hearing last month, Cannon dismissed the case Monday in a 93-page order.
Some legal experts ABC News spoke with said they weren’t surprised with Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case, pointing to Cannon’s previous rulings that favored the former president.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by repeatedly quoting legal experts and constitutional scholars in support of their argument that Judge Cannon's decision is bizarre and will likely be reversed. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the judge's ruling as 'bizarre' and a 'major victory for Trump'.
A major victory for Trump on the heels of the Supreme Court decision that broadened the scope of presidential immunity
It’s completely expected.
[Cannon] has had a pattern for some time of issuing rulings that favor Trump, and it’s also been expected she would do whatever she could to help Trump.
A quick look at Cannon’s ruling suggests that she engaged in a pretty bizarre form of statutory interpretation to find that they didn’t authorize Smith’s appointment.
It seems like Judge Cannon accepted Justice Thomas’ invitation and concurrence to kick this on these grounds.
I think there’s a pattern that’s developing that is quite troublesome.
Bias
(90%)
The author of the article, ABC News, expresses a clear bias towards Trump in this article by repeatedly referencing his name and legal issues. The author also quotes several experts who are critical of Judge Cannon's ruling and Trump's team's motion to dismiss the case. However, the author also quotes experts who support Judge Cannon's decision, which somewhat balances out the bias. The article does not use language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled counter to decades of established law and precedence to toss the case involving allegations of Trump taking and concealing classified documents after leaving office.
Trump faces multiple legal cases including a pending criminal case in Georgia on attempts to overturn the 2020 election there and a civil case where he was found liable for sexual assault. (This fact is unique because it mentions the specific ongoing legal cases against Trump that are not mentioned in any of the other articles.)
Accuracy
Former President Donald Trump has been issued multiple get-out-of-jail-free cards by judges he appointed.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday, citing that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was not authorized by Congress.
Judge Aileen Cannon found that Smith’s appointment and funding were not authorized by Congress.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The author commits an appeal to authority fallacy by referencing the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Clarence Thomas. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating 'law and order is alleged to apply to everyone in America, but former President Donald Trump keeps being issued get-out-of-jail-free cards by judges he appointed.'
][The law is clear][We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.][][Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court’s other six conservatives, three appointed by Trump, in that 6-3 ruling but couldn’t resist helping Trump on a legal point that was not part of the case ][][Future Supreme Court Justice Cannon.]
Bias
(15%)
The author expresses clear political bias against former President Trump and his legal proceedings. The author's language is critical of Trump and the judges involved in the case, implying that they are acting improperly or unfairly. The author also makes assumptions about Trump's motivations and actions without providing evidence.
Cannon played along, shutting down the prosecutors and appointing a special master to sift through the documents. Smith appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was heard by three judges, including two appointed by Trump.
It would be easy to get angry at this point about how law and order is alleged to apply to everyone in America, but former President Donald Trump keeps being issued get-out-of-jail-free cards by judges he appointed.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, the justices took a pass in October 2022 when Trump asked them to overturn the 11th Circuit, which had just overturned Cannon.
Thomas opened the door for Cannon to toss the documents charges against Trump. And that's just what she did.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case
Some readers believed that Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision was influenced by political parties or special interests
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon was assigned to the classified documents case
Cannon’s ruling could upend the longstanding practice of appointing special counsels to independently conduct investigations and bring charges
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes several appeals to emotion and inflammatory statements without providing any evidence or logical reasoning to support their claims. The author also engages in a dichotomous depiction of Judge Aileen Cannon, portraying her as an extension of political parties rather than an impartial judge.
It is rare that I read a news article that I describe as breathtaking, but Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of Donald Trump’s classified documents case falls into this rare category.
, The ruling highlights that individual judges are no longer arbiters but rather extensions of political parties.
, She must have been writing her 93-page opinion for a while, but she released it with impeccable timing to give Donald Trump a victory going into the opening of the convention.
, The decision by Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the documents case against Donald Trump, who appointed her, highlights the broader issue of judicial impropriety or, at the very minimum, the appearance of judicial impropriety.
Bias
(95%)
The author expresses strong opinions about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision in the Trump documents case, implying that it is politically motivated and biased. The author also implies that the judge is auditioning for a Supreme Court appointment.
It is rare that I read a news article that I describe as breathtaking, but Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of Donald Trump’s classified documents case falls into this rare category.
She must have been writing her 93-page opinion for a while, but she released it with impeccable timing to give Donald Trump a victory going into the opening of the convention.
The decision by Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the documents case against Donald Trump, who appointed her, highlights the broader issue of judicial impropriety or, at the very minimum, the appearance of judicial impropriety.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution against former President Donald Trump.
Cannon found that Smith’s appointment and funding were not authorized by Congress, ignoring Supreme Court precedent and statute text.
Accuracy
Cannon declared that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel is unlawful under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Deception
(35%)
The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author, who expresses their opinion that Judge Cannon's ruling is 'shameless judicial activism' and 'MAGAfied'. The author also uses emotional manipulation by stating that the ruling is a 'political gift to Trump' and a 'destabilizing turn of events'. Additionally, there is selective reporting as the author only reports details that support their position, such as Cannon's past interventions in the case and her alleged bias. The article does not disclose any sources.
Even given Cannon’s clear bias and reckless handling of the case from the outset, this development is jaw-dropping.
This development is jaw-dropping.
It is shameless judicial activism with no other basis than to immunize Trump from accountability.
Fallacies
(55%)
The author commits an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Nixon case and other courts' rulings without providing any new or compelling reasoning. They also use inflammatory rhetoric, such as 'MAGAfication of the judiciary,' 'lawlessness,' and 'destabilizing turn of events.'
> The Supreme Court upheld the Watergate special prosecutor’s subpoena of President Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. In reaching that conclusion, the court explained that Congress had ‘the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist [the attorney general] in the discharge of his duties,’ including the special prosecutor, through precisely the same statutes that authorize Smith’s appointment.
, > Every other court that has ruled on the issue in the 50 years since then has agreed.
> So it is possible that the Supreme Court will slap Cannon’s ruling down – as it has done with other rogue conservative district court judges this term who far exceeded their parameters.
Bias
(0%)
The author expresses clear political bias against former President Donald Trump and Judge Aileen Cannon. The author's language is derogatory towards Trump and Cannon, referring to their decisions as 'shameless judicial activism,' 'deviations from the law,' and 'MAGAfication of the judiciary.' The author also expresses a desire for voters to repudiate Trump in November.
But Cannon discarded that unbroken line of precedent.
Even given Cannon’s clear bias and reckless handling of the case from the outset,
It is shameless judicial activism with no other basis than to immunize Trump from accountability.
She went on to hold that the appropriation of funds to the special counsel was similarly inappropriate.
The Supreme Court has become unmoored.
This development is jaw-dropping.
This is not a conservative, textualist legal decision grounded in a careful reading of the statute. It is shameless judicial activism with no other basis than to immunize Trump from accountability.
