On Monday, Donald Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case regarding Trump’s improper handling of classified documents, citing a questionable argument about the Department of Justice’s appointment of a special counsel for the case.
Cannon said that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, a longshot argument — presented by Trump’s legal team and supported by far right groups — that goes against long-decided precedent. The decision comes as a surprise even considering Cannon’s documented bias toward Trump and conservatives.
Experts say the decision will be appealed, though it will delay hearing of the case indefinitely — a goal of Trump’s team, who believed that the documents case was the strongest one of the four against Trump, and who have been seeking delays due to the impending election.
The argument against Smith’s appointment was recently supported by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. In the opinion, he appeared to be directly lobbying Cannon, and encouraged “lower courts” to examine the question of whether or not Smith’s appointment is legal.
Thomas didn’t directly reference Smith or the documents case, but experts have noted that his mention of the topic while pondering a largely unrelated legal question was Thomas’s way of pushing Cannon to make the decision she did on Monday. The Supreme Court justice had refused to recuse himself from the immunity case, despite his clear conflicts of interest and pro-Trump views.
Cannon’s decision, in which she cites Thomas’s opinion multiple times, has been condemned as a blatant attempt to shield Trump from prosecution, with no legal basis.
“I have been suspicious of the ‘Judge Cannon is undermining the rule of law to protect Donald Trump’ line of argument, mostly because of the extreme rhetoric,” said New York University law professor Noah Rosenblum on social media. “Now I feel very naive. This is bonkers. She is just making things up.”
“Just to be crystal clear: SCOTUS has upheld special counsels repeatedly. Cannon is a district court judge, her job is to apply controlling precedent,” said MSNBC host Chris Hayes. “She’s doing this because she thinks the MAGA court is on the same page as her and Trump’s lawyers and will go along.”
Cannon has been criticized in the past for seemingly purposely delaying the proceedings of the case. Legal experts have called on Cannon to be removed from the case due to her biases toward Trump; last month, The New York Times reported that two judges, including her direct superior, have encouraged her to remove herself from the case.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.