Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to assure public trust in Trump prosecutions.
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal against the dismissal of the criminal case involving former President Donald Trump and classified documents by Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida.
The appeal is likely to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of how the 11th Circuit appeals court rules.
The controversy began when Trump was charged with unauthorized retention of classified documents and conspiracy to obstruct justice related to the handling of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence.
Trump faces separate charges by Smith in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., for his attempts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
In a recent development, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed an appeal against the dismissal of the criminal case involving former President Donald Trump and classified documents by Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida. The appeal is expected to be heard in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
The controversy began when Trump was charged with unauthorized retention of classified documents and conspiracy to obstruct justice related to the handling of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving the White House. However, Cannon dismissed the case on grounds that Smith's funding for his prosecutorial office violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution.
Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to assure public trust in Trump prosecutions. The appeal is likely to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of how the 11th Circuit appeals court rules.
Trump, who is currently the Republican presidential nominee, faces separate charges by Smith in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., for his attempts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
The appeal comes after Cannon's decision was criticized by legal scholars and rebuked by a three-judge panel on the appeals court in Atlanta in a different matter regarding the appointment of an outside expert in the Trump classified documents case.
Despite this setback, Smith remains committed to his mission of ensuring accountability and upholding the law. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for ongoing investigations into Trump's actions and potential misconduct.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed notice of appeal in the dismissal of Donald Trump's indictment by Judge Aileen M. Cannon.
The appeal will be heard in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Judge Cannon dismissed the indictment on grounds that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution.
In a different matter, a three-judge panel on the appeals court rebuked Cannon's decision to appoint an outside expert in the Trump classified documents case.
Accuracy
Special counsel Jack Smith filed notice of appeal in the dismissal of Donald Trump’s indictment by Judge Aileen M. Cannon.
Judge Cannon dismissed the indictment on grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution.
Trump is accused of taking over 300 classified documents from the White House and obstructing efforts to retrieve them.
Judge Aileen Cannon's justification for throwing out the prosecution was widely panned by legal scholars, but her removal from the case is unlikely due to lack of malfeasance and shallow record supporting it.
Congress had not given Attorney General Merrick Garland the power to appoint a special counsel like Smith, and Smith’s office was funded in an unlawful fashion according to Cannon’s conclusion.
The 11th Circuit Court has previously overturned Cannon’s decision to appoint an outside expert to review materials seized from Mar-a-Lago.
Cannon’s ruling followed arguments laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity case, but none of Thomas’ eight colleagues signed on to his solo concurring opinion.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment on grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution.
Judge Cannon found that Smith’s funding for his prosecutorial office violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author states that 'several veteran attorneys who practice in that circuit told CNN that the appeals court would be unlikely to grant such a request' without providing any evidence or quotes from these attorneys. This is an example of selective reporting as the author only reports information that supports their position and ignores contradictory information. Additionally, the author states 'That means Smith’s best possible outcome might be that the appeals court reverses Cannon’s ruling invalidating his appointment, the Supreme Court lets that stand and several months from now...the criminal case can pick up right where it left off' implying that this is a negative outcome for Smith. This is an example of editorializing as the author is expressing their opinion on the matter.
several veteran attorneys who practice in that circuit told CNN that the appeals court would be unlikely to grant such a request
That means Smith’s best possible outcome might be that the appeals court reverses Cannon’s ruling invalidating his appointment, the Supreme Court lets that stand and several months from now...the criminal case can pick up right where it left off
Fallacies
(90%)
The author makes several arguments against the removal of Judge Aileen Cannon from a case involving Donald Trump's classified documents. The author quotes several attorneys who express their opinions on the matter, but these are not fallacies as they are simply statements made by experts in the field. However, there is an appeal to authority fallacy when the author states that 'several veteran attorneys who practice in that circuit told CNN that the appeals court would be unlikely to grant such a request.' This statement implies that because these attorneys have experience and expertise, their opinion should be accepted as fact without question. Additionally, there is an inflammatory rhetoric fallacy when the author describes Cannon's handling of the case as 'exasperating proceedings that featured several breaks from normal judicial procedure and that culminated in a shock ruling dismissing the charges against Donald Trump.' This language is intended to elicit an emotional response from readers rather than providing objective analysis.
]several veteran attorneys who practice in that circuit told CNN that the appeals court would be unlikely to grant such a request.[
This situation is so exceedingly rare, you don’t really have precedent to look at.[
But reassignment just because the district judge made an erroneous decision? That is virtually unheard of.
Bias
(95%)
The author expresses a clear bias against Judge Aileen Cannon and her handling of the Trump classified documents case. The author repeatedly uses language that depicts Cannon's rulings as 'adverse', 'shock ruling', 'wrong', and 'not bonkers'. The author also quotes several legal analysts who share the same negative opinion about Cannon, further reinforcing the bias. However, no direct examples of religious or ideological bias are present in the article.
'But several veteran attorneys who practice in that circuit told CNN that the appeals court would be unlikely to grant such a request, even though Cannon’s justification for throwing out the prosecution was widely panned by legal scholars.'
'She’s been careful to not blindly issue rulings ... and that has kept the record really shallow when looking for a removal rationale.'
'What we have here are adverse rulings and her not resolving the case quickly.'
The Supreme Court is likely to agree with the dismissal of Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump on July 15.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith received permission from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal the decision after Cannon’s dismissal.
Trump faced 40 federal charges related to his alleged handling of sensitive materials and obstruction of efforts by federal authorities to retrieve them.
Greg Germain, an attorney and law professor, predicts that the Supreme Court will say the appointment of special counsel overseeing Trump’s federal indictments violated the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause.
Germain also suggests that Cannon should have given the DOJ an opportunity to rectify the problem by appointing a supervisor confirmed by the Senate or having President appoint Smith and have him confirmed by the Senate.
The DOJ could have avoided the crisis by having the U.S. attorney for Florida, who has been confirmed by the Senate, bring the case and hire anyone including Jack Smith to prosecute it.
Accuracy
]The Supreme Court is likely to agree with the dismissal of Donald Trump's classified documents case.[
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump on July 15.
Trump faced 40 federal charges related to his alleged handling of sensitive materials and obstruction of efforts by federal authorities to retrieve them.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal against the dismissal of the criminal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump by Florida court federal Judge Aileen Cannon.
Special counsel Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to assure public trust in Trump prosecutions.
Trump is separately charged by Smith in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., with four felonies related to his attempts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Judge Cannon dismissed the case on grounds that Smith’s funding for his prosecutorial office violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution.
Smith’s appeal is likely to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of how the 11th Circuit appeals court rules.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed notice of appeal in the dismissal of Donald Trump's indictment by Judge Aileen M. Cannon.
Judge Aileen Cannon's justification for throwing out the prosecution was widely panned by legal scholars, but her removal from the case is unlikely due to lack of malfeasance and shallow record supporting it.
The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be
Judge Aileen Cannon's 93-page order held that Smith's selection as special counsel violated the Constitution because he was named to the position directly by Attorney General Merrick Garland instead of being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The Supreme Court, in a 50-year-old opinion involving President Richard Nixon, held that the Justice Department had the statutory authority to appoint a special prosecutor.
Accuracy
A judge’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump is not the final word as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appeal is expected to lead to a court fight that might reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment on grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution.
The appeal could result in the reinstatement of the indictment and possibly a reassignment of the case to a different judge.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author quotes experts who challenge the judge's decision and implies that it is an outlier, but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. The article also uses emotional manipulation by implying that the dismissal of the case is a 'stunning decision' and a 'careful and scholarly analysis' that requires swift reversal.
It's impossible to say whether the opinion will stand or be reversed on appeal, though other judges in other districts in recent years have reached opposite conclusions of Cannon, upholding the constitutionality of special counsels who were appointed by Justice Department leadership and funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation.
The difficulty with Judge Cannon has been that she has made no decisions. She has simply sat on the case.
The Smith team is likely to point to all of those court holdings in casting Cannon to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as an outlier who made not just a bad decision but one requiring swift reversal.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author quotes Nancy Gertner making a statement that could be considered an appeal to authority when she says 'the difficulty with Judge Cannon has been that she has made no decisions.' However, this statement is not a logical argument and does not prove the validity of the judge's actions being in question. Additionally, there are several instances of loaded language used throughout the article that could be considered inflammatory rhetoric. For example, the author refers to Trump's cases as 'Witch Hunts.' These fallacies do not significantly impact the overall argument but still reduce the credibility of the article slightly.
]The difficulty with Judge Cannon has been that she has made no decisions.[
This case became snarled over the last year by interminable delays.
weeks after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago for classified documents in August 2022, Cannon granted a Trump team request to appoint an independent arbiter to review the seized records
It is unclear if Smith’s team will seek to have Cannon reassigned in the event that the appeals court reinstates the case.
But there is precedent for appeals courts taking that step, including in the same judicial district where the Florida case was charged.
