Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Glenn Kirschner excellent as always.

"For Judge in Trump Documents Case, Unusual Rulings Are Business as Usual
[...]Judge Aileen Cannon has repeatedly proven willing to hear out even far-fetched arguments from the former president’s legal team, including a challenge to the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith.
[...] Reaching back to the early 1970s, courts have repeatedly rejected efforts like Mr. Trump’s to question the legality of independent prosecutors. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.
P - Judges have also tossed efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.
P - Despite this record, however, Judge Cannon has decided to consider the constitutionality of Mr. Smith’s appointment anew — and not on the merits of written briefs, but rather at an expansive hearing that will spill across two days. The proceeding might go beyond the normal process of merely making arguments and could include, as the judge recently wrote, the “presentation of evidence,” though it remains unclear what evidence she meant."

H/t Zorax -- https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174763660

Cannon 'for Trump' said, special prosecutors appointed by AG are illegal under the constitution, and
that no court had previously particularly ruled on the legality of them. Wrong. As recently as 1918:

Trump-appointed judge upholds Mueller’s legitimacy
[...]Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. last year, is the fourth judge to quash efforts to upend Mueller’s legitimacy and cancel his investigation. Judges overseeing the two trials of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- D.C. judge Amy Berman Jackson and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis -- rejected Manafort’s bid to invalidate Mueller.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/13/mueller-legitimate-court-ruling-774888

One other article cited by Mr. Kirschner:

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Smith. “The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court’s order.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

Also, according to Kirschner, she said SCOTUS had not ruled on the question, while but in fact - at 6:33 - they did indirectly in the '70s Nixon case when they said the Special Prosecutor's subpoena for the Nixon tape had to be acceded to:

Court Orders Nixon to Yield Tapes; President Promises to Comply Fully
Justices Reject Privilege Claim in 8-to-0 Ruling

By John P. MacKenzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 25, 1974; Page A01
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday unanimously, and definitively, that President Nixon must turn over tape recordings of White House conversations needed by the Watergate special prosecutor for the trial of the President's highest aides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/072574-1.htm

He thinks the 11th Court of Appeal will reverse Cannon's ruling as they did once already earlier.

OOps, almost forgot, Kirschner also suggested Cannon had been influenced
by the Clarence Thomas note attached to the SCOTUS immunity decision:

Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?

A court ruling that dismissed Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment echoed language in a concurring opinion Thomas wrote in the former president's election interference case.

July 16, 2024, 7:00 AM GMT+10
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court this month handed a big win to former President Donald Trump on presidential immunity, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his own opinion raising questions about a related issue: Was special counsel Jack Smith lawfully appointed?

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. It was questionable whether Smith's appointment was indeed valid under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, he added.

Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case Monday when she dismissed the charges in Trump's classified documents case in Florida, which Smith is also prosecuting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975

One more - [...]If I have to live in a banana republic, I'd prefer one with actual bananas.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174758537