Beyond The Horizon
The Illegal Documents Case Against Trump Has Been Tossed (Part 1) (7/16/24)
The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.
In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.
The Justice Department maintains that Smith’s appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General’s oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution.
Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.
(commercial at 8:28)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)
- Duration:
- 15m
- Broadcast on:
- 16 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
As a proud military-friendly school, National University can help you find your calling, with more than 190 degrees, certificates, and credentials to choose from, and support for military spouses like you, it's no surprise that 25% of NU students are service members, veterans, spouses, and dependents. Earning a degree is a commitment, but at NU, you're never alone. Our dedicated military support teams and advisors are with you every step of the way. Learn more at NU.edu. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save, too. With Medicare's Extra Help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. One of the cases, or trials that I've been following, is Donald Trump's trial, down in Florida, and as I've followed along with it, I've been flabbergasted with how much prosecutorial misconduct has occurred. And you would think that, for people who say they have the goods on somebody, that they'd be able to prosecute their case in a forthright manner. But obviously, that is not what went down. And we know that now because Judge Cannon has tossed the whole ass indictment right out the window and into the ocean, and considering all of the missteps and the prosecutorial misconduct once again, you have nobody to blame, but the DOJ and their weak ass case. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna dive into this order by Judge Cannon and see what she had to say, and why she dismissed this superseded indictment. Case number 23-80101-CR-Cannon, United States of America, plaintiff, vs. Donald J. Trump, Walter Notta, and Carlos D'Oleviera. Order granting motion to dismiss superseding indictment based on appointments, clause violation. So in other words, the DOJ didn't do things correctly, and Jack Smith wasn't even really a special counsel. Former President Trump's motion to dismiss indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel Jack Smith is granted in accordance with this order, ECF number 326. The superseding indictment is dismissed because special counsel dismiss appointment violates the appointment's clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. Special counsel Jack Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7. But the court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on appointment's clause grounds. The effect of this order is confined to this preceding introduction. The motion before the court challenges the legality of special counsel Smith, here and after special counsel Smith, or special counsel, in two consequential respects, both a witch or matters of first impression in this circuit and both of which must be resolved before this prosecution proceeds further. The first is a challenge to his appointment under the appointment's clause, which provides the exclusive means for appointing officers of the United States, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. The appointment's clause sets as a default rule that all officers of the United States, whether inferior or a principal, must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It then goes on to direct that Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in heads of departments. For purposes of this order, the court accepts the special counsel's contested view that he qualifies as an inferior officer, not a principal one, although the court expresses reservations about the proposition and addresses those arguments below. The motion's second challenge is rooted in the appropriations clause, which prohibits any money from being drawn from the treasury unless such funding has been appropriated by an act of Congress, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Both the appointments and appropriations challenges, as framed in the motion, raise the following threshold question. Is there a statute in the United States code that authorizes the appointment of special counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of the seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited its legal authority for the appointment, U.S. Code 28, Section 509, 510, 515, and 533, gives the attorney general broad inferior officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with a kind of prosecutorial power wielded by special counsel Smith. Nor do the special counsel strain statutory arguments appeal to inconsistent history or alliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise. The bottom line is this. The appointments clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The special counsel's position effectively usurps that important legislative authority transferring it to a head of department and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers. If the political branches wish to grant the attorney general power to appoint, special counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full power of the United States attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the appointments clause as Congress has directed for United States attorneys throughout American history. See, U.S. Code 28, Section 541, or a Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the appointments clause. This order proceeds as follows. After laying forth pertinent factual and procedural background leading to the present motion, the court summarizes the legal principles underlying the appointment's clause and the separation of powers doctrine on which it rests. The court then surveys the statutory structure of the Department of Justice focusing on the provisions which grant the attorney general appointment authority. Following that contextual summary, the court engages with the text, context, and structure of each of the statute cited in the appointed order. Finding no offer, appointing authority in the cited statutes, and seeing no reason in the mixed historical record to deviate from the absence of such authority, the court addresses the Supreme Court's dictum with respect to those statutes in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694, 1974. As the Nixon decision and record bear out the attorney general's statutory appointment authority, or the matter of the appointment's clause more generally, was not raised, argued, disputed, or analyzed at most. The Supreme Court, assumed without deciding that the attorney general possessed statutory appointment authority over the special prosecutor involved in that action. Following the discussion of Nixon and related out-of-circuit precedent, the court turns to the question whether special counsel Smith is a principal officer requiring presidential nomination and senatorial consent. On that issue, although there are compelling arguments in favor of a principal officer designation given the regulatory framework under which he operates, the court rejects the position based on the available Supreme Court guidance. The court then examines the question of remedy, concluding that dismissal of this action is the only appropriate solution for the appointment's clause violation. Finally, the court considers the appropriations clause challenge has not authorized the appropriation of money to be drawn for the expenses of his office. The order concludes there, finding it unnecessary under the current posture to reach the remedy question for the appropriations clause violation. The procedural history and overview of the motion. On June 8, 2023, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment signed by the special counsel, charging former President Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information in his Mar-a-Lago residence in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 793-E. The indictment also brought seven conspiracy and concealment charges against Trump and Wal-Teen Nada, collectively and/or individually. ECF, No. 3, charging 18, U.S. Code, Section 1512-K, 1512-B, 2-A, 1512-C and 2, 1519, 2001, A2 and 2. On July 27, 2023, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment, also signed by the special counsel, increasing the number of total charges to 42 and adding a third defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, ECF No. 85. "We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is working to responsibly meet rising energy demand. So everyone can get to where they want to be. You've arrived. That's Energy in Progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless." This summer, saddle up with the only sports book where you can bet on horse racing. FanDuel. Right now, new customers can get a no sweat, first bet, up to $500. That's right, you'll get up to $500 bucks back in racing credit if your first horse racing bet doesn't win. With FanDuel's sports book, you can even watch and bet select races live right in the app. So, bet horse racing on the same app where you bet all your other favorite sports. FanDuel. America's No. 1 Sportsbook. Just download the app or go to fanduel.com/horses to score your no sweat bet up to $500. 21+ in present in Colorado. Offer valid on first real money wager of $5 or more. Bareified FD Racing account required. Bonus issued in non-withdrawable racing site credit then expires seven days after issuance. Max refund $500. Restrictions apply. On February 22nd, 2024, Trump filed the instant motion and the special counsel filed an opposition on March 7th, 2024. And Trump filed a reply on March 24th, 2024, three sets of amicus parties filed briefs on the appointments clause questioned. ECF numbers, 364-1, 586 and 587, 618. Elise Amici, ECF number 410-2, landmark legal Amici, ECF number 429, constitutional lawyer Amici, and the court later ordered and received supplemental briefing addressing the need for factual development on the motion. Finally, on June 21st, and 24th, 2024, the court heard lengthy oral argument on the motion from the parties and the authorized Amici. The motion seeks dismissal of the superseding indictment based on the unlawful appointment of funding of special counsel Jack Smith. The motion argues that his appointment violates the appointment's clause for two basic reasons. One, special counsel Smith was not nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate as would be required for the appointment of a principal officer or for the appointment of an inferior officer as to which Congress has not authorized such an appointment. And two, even accepting the position that he qualifies as an inferior officer, none of the statute cited in the appointment order, CUS code 28 section 509 510 515 533, best the attorney general with the authority to appoint a special counsel with full power and authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney. As is the case with special counsel Smith, C28 CFR section 600 dot six. The motion separately raises an appropriations clause challenge because one, he is drawing on a permanent indefinite appropriation reserved for an independent counsel under a statutory appropriation that does not apply to him. See Department of Justice Appropriations Act of 1988. The special counsel opposes both challenges as to the appointment's clause issue. He urges that the attorney general exercise statutory authority in US code 28 section 515 and 553 to appoint him citing the Supreme Court's decision in United States verse Nixon 418 US 683 1974 DC Circuit Authority and historical practice ECF number 374 pages one through 16. As to the appropriations clause issue, special counsel Smith argues that he lawfully draws from the indefinite appropriation for independent councils because he retained substantial independence from the attorney general and was appointed pursuant to other law in form of the same statute cited above US code 28 section 515 and 533. In any case, special counsel Smith continues any appropriations defect should not result in dismissal of the superseding indictment because the department lawfully have drawn funds from another source to investigate and prosecute this action. All right, we're going to wrap up with part one right here and in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off and that's with factual background. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year or a married couple who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualified, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Hey there, it is Ryan Seacrest with you. You want to make this summer unforgettable? Join me at Chumba Casino. It's this summer's hottest online destination. They are rolling out the red carpet with an amazing welcome offer just for you. So don't wait. Dive in now and play hundreds of social casino games for free. Your chance to redeem real prizes is just a spin away. Can you join me?