Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed all charges in the Trump classified documents case on July 15, 2024.
Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was deemed unlawful due to lack of specific federal statute and confirmation by the Senate.
The dismissal raises questions about the legality and legitimacy of Smith's appointment and the entire investigation.
In a series of unexpected developments, the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump has taken a turn with Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissing all charges on July 15, 2024. The ruling was based on her finding that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unlawful due to lack of specific federal statute and confirmation by the Senate.
According to reports from various sources, including The New York Times and CNN, Judge Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment violated the US Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause grants presidents the power to appoint officials who must then be confirmed by the Senate. Smith plans to appeal this ruling, and the Justice Department has also announced its intention to do so.
The dismissal of charges against Trump comes amidst ongoing investigations into his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his private residence in Florida. The case had been seen as one of the strongest criminal cases brought against Trump last year. However, Judge Cannon's decision has raised questions about the legality and legitimacy of Smith's appointment and the entire investigation.
President Joe Biden weighed in on the situation, expressing his disagreement with Judge Cannon's ruling and suggesting that it may have been influenced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in a recent immunity decision. However, there is no clear evidence to support this claim.
The dismissal of the case against Trump marks a significant development in the ongoing legal saga surrounding his handling of classified documents. It remains to be seen how this ruling will impact future investigations and potential legal actions against Trump.
Biden criticized U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump, calling it 'specious'.
Biden suggested that the decision was influenced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in a recent immunity decision.
Accuracy
Biden described Cannon’s ruling as ‘specious’ because he disagrees with Thomas.
Judge Cannon dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday based on her finding that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Deception
(0%)
The author, Dareh Gregorian, makes editorializing statements and expresses his opinion about the legality of the special counsel's appointment and the Supreme Court decision. He also mischaracterizes Justice Thomas' concurring opinion as a dissent.
> Dareh Gregorian: ‘They seem out of touch with what the founders intended.’
> Biden called Cannon’s ruling ‘specious’ because he disagrees with Thomas.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting President Biden's statement that he is 'not surprised' by the judge's decision and attributing it to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion. However, Biden is expressing his own opinion, not stating a fact. The fallacy lies in implying that the judge was influenced by Thomas' opinion when there is no evidence of that.
The ruling comes from the immunity decision the Supreme Court ruled on this month, and he pointed to a concurring opinion in the ruling by Thomas, which he inaccurately referred to as a dissent.
Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said that independent prosecutors created by the attorney general aren't legit. That's the basis of which this judge moved to dismiss.
Bias
(0%)
The author expresses disagreement with a Supreme Court Justice's opinion and labels it 'terrible', implying bias against that opinion.
a terrible decision
They seem out of touch with what the founders intended
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents case on Monday based on her finding that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The judge found that Garland’s appointment of Smith violated the US Constitution's Appointments Clause, which gives presidents the power to appoint officials who must then be confirmed by the Senate.
Smith plans to appeal the ruling, and the Justice Department has also announced its intention to do so.
Accuracy
,
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting and editorializing. The author focuses on the technical legal grounds for the dismissal of the case against Donald Trump, while only mentioning in passing that Trump's alleged actions involved mishandling classified documents. The authors also express their opinion that Cannon's decision handed a 'huge legal and political win' to Trump, implying their disapproval of the ruling. They also quote Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, stating that the Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling.
Cannon's handling of the case has drawn widespread scrutiny...
The shock decision by Cannon... handed an enormous legal and political win to the former president...
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors commit an appeal to authority fallacy by relying on Judge Cannon's ruling and the concurrence of Justice Thomas without providing any analysis or evaluation of their reasoning. They also make a dichotomous depiction by presenting the dismissal of the case as an 'enormous legal and political win' for Trump, implying that it is a clear-cut victory with no nuance or context.
]A federal judge's decision to dismiss Donald Trump's classified documents case on Monday was a surprising end to what was once seen as one of the strongest criminal cases brought against the former president last year.[
Judge Cannon said in a 93-page ruling that the case should be tossed out based on her finding that special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
But the shock decision by Cannon, a Trump appointee whose handling of the case has drawn widespread scrutiny, still handed an enormous legal and political win to the former president on the same day that the Republican National Convention kicked off in Milwaukee.
Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed all charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case on Monday.
, Judge Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was improper because it was not based on a specific federal statute and he had not been named to the post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
Judge Cannon also found that Smith had been improperly funded by the Treasury Department.
Accuracy
] Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed all charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case on Monday.[
Judge Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was improper because it was not based on a specific federal statute and he had not been named to the post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The authors commit an appeal to authority fallacy by citing previous court decisions in support of the legality of special counsel appointments and then dismissing them based on one judge's opinion. They also use inflammatory rhetoric by describing the judge's decision as 'stunning' and a 'major legal victory' for Trump.
]The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was put on the bench by Mr. Trump in his final year in office, flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back to the Watergate era that upheld the legality of the ways in which independent prosecutors have been put into their posts.[
