Posts tagged with "U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon"

Special Counsel Jack Smith urges appeals court to revive Trump classified documents case

August 28, 2024

On Monday, August 26, federal prosecutors asked an appeals court to restore Donald Trump’s classified documents case—pushing back on the former president’s claims that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution, reports NBC News.

“The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded,” Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce, a member of Smith’s team, wrote in a brief filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the special counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of attorney general appointments of special counsels.”

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, last month granted Trump’s attorneys’ request to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution’s appointments and appropriations clauses.

It also notes that attorneys general have been appointing special counsels for more than 150 years, quoting from a 1998 law review article written by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh that refers to the practice as a “deeply rooted tradition.”

The brief places a lot of emphasis on the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling in United States v. Nixon, in which the court upheld the enforceability of a subpoena issued by the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

The legality of a special counsel or prosecutor was not directly at question in Nixon, but the Supreme Court issued its ruling based on the presumption that such appointments were allowed.

Cannon’s order dismissing Trump’s classified documents case referred to that section of the Nixon decision as nonbinding, but Smith’s team contended on Monday that the decision was binding to lower courts.

“Apart from the district court below, every court to consider the question has concluded that the Supreme Court’s determination that those statutes authorized the attorney general to appoint the Watergate Special Prosecutor was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed and therefore constitutes a holding that binds lower courts,” Pearce wrote.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in 2022 to probe Trump’s handling of classified materials, as well as his efforts to subvert 2020 presidential election results in the lead-up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Pearce noted in Monday’s filing what he characterized as the cascading impact Cannon’s dismissal would have on the federal government if her reasoning were upheld: “If the attorney general lacks the power to appoint inferior officers, that conclusion would invalidate the appointment of every member of the department who exercises significant authority and occupies a continuing office, other than the few that are specifically identified by statute,” Pearce wrote.

The district court’s rationale would likewise raise questions about hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch, including in the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor,” Pearce added. “The implausibility of that outcome underscores why the district court’s novel conclusions lack merit.”

Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, said in a statement Monday that Cannon’s dismissal of the case should be upheld: “As we move forward in Uniting our Nation, not only should the dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida be affirmed, but be immediately joined by a dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts,” Cheung said, using a term that Trump and his allies have adopted to refer to the legal battles Trump faces.

Cheung also called the cases “political attacks” and characterized them as election interference as Trump seeks a second term as president.

Attorneys for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

Research contact: @NBCNews

Judge Chutkan says Trump’s right to free speech in January 6 case is ‘not absolute’

August 14, 2023

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said on Friday August 11, that she plans to issue a protective order over the handling of evidence in the Trump 2020 election interference case—saying it’s needed to protect witnesses or other interference in the trial, reports CNN.

The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” the judge said at a hearing on Monday, August 7.

“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” Chutkan said.

“Without a protective order, a party could release information that could taint the jury pool, intimidate witnesses, or others involved in some aspect of the case, or otherwise interfere with the “process of justice,” she added.

This is the first hearing before Chutkan. According to CNN, she already has shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the U.S. Capitol attack caused to American democracy.

How Chutkan handles the case is likely to serve as a contrast to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee in Florida who has been in less of a rush to move proceedings along in the classified documents case against the former president. She already has been heavily scrutinized for what critics say is a favorable treatment of the former president in a previous lawsuit Trump brought last year challenging aspects of the Justice Department’s investigation.

Trump pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election last week. The special counsel said on Thursday that he wants the trial to begin on January 2, 2024—a date that the former president’s team is expected to oppose.

Scope of protective order over evidence

In Friday’s hearing, lawyers are debating the scope of a protective order governing evidence that prosecutors say proves Trump conspired to overturn the election, interrupt Congress, and take away every American citizen’s right to have their vote counted.

Protective orders are a normal part of any criminal case and are typically approved without much drama. In this case, however, the special counsel’s office and Trump’s defense lawyers have battled in court filings over what Trump will be able to discuss publicly.

Among the restrictions the prosecutors are requesting in this case is a rule barring Trump’s lawyers from providing copies of “sensitive” evidence to the former president, including witness interviews and grand jury transcripts from the dozens of witnesses in Trump’s circle who have spoken to prosecutors.

To make their point, prosecutors pointed to Trump’s social media posts since he was indicted last week, including a vague and ominous Truth Social post reading “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Trump also slammed Chutkan, writing in one all caps post, “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case. Everybody knows this and so does she!”

The posts, prosecutors said, emphasized the need for a protective order that would limit whether Trump can discuss or share evidence on his social media accounts during the course of the legal case.

“If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” prosecutors wrote.

For their part, Trump’s legal team proposed less restrictive rules, alleging that prosecutors are on a politically motivated campaign to restrict his First Amendment rights. His defense lawyers pushed back on prosecutors’ definition of “sensitive” material that should be subject to additional rules, and asked to expand who can access certain evidentiary materials.

If Trump were to violate any eventual protective order Chutkan issues, he could be held in contempt.

Research contact: @CNN

Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in Mar-A-Lago secret document dispute

October 6, 2022

On Tuesday, October 4, former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block documents seized by the FBI from his Mar-a-Lago home and office on August 8, reports HuffPost.

The former president—who fomented a coup to remain in power after losing reelection—is appealing a three-judge decision from a federal appeals court in Atlanta, which last month overturned a ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

The unanimous decision by the federal appeal court allowed the Department of Justice to go forward with its review of classified documents seized at the Palm Beach, Florida, private club.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Cannon erred when she stopped the Department of Justice from continuing its analysis of 103 documents, which were among 11,000 taken from the White House at the end of Trump’s presidency.

In a 276-page filing with the Supreme Court, Trump’s new lawyer, Christopher Kise, challenged the circuit court’s ruling.

“The government has attempted to criminalize a document management dispute and now vehemently objects to a transparent process that provides much-needed oversight,” Kise argued.

His primary argument is that 11th Circuit lacks the jurisdiction to overrule the particulars of Cannon’s order approving a special master and telling the DOJ to halt its criminal investigation until that review is finished.

But Kise couched it in terms that suggest the DOJ is acting out of malice or politics.

“The unprecedented circumstances presented by this case―an investigation of the Forty-Fifth President of the United States by the administration of his political rival and successor―compelled the District Court to acknowledge the significant need for enhanced vigilance and to order the appointment of a Special Master to ensure fairness, transparency, and maintenance of the public trust,” Kise wrote.

In a lengthy footnote, Kise added that the federal government is treating Trump dramatically differently than previous presidents, with whom the National Archives made agreements for document storage and cataloging.

“The government feigned concern about purported classified records to justify commencement of a criminal investigation (not even contemplated under the Presidential Records Act) and then raided President Trump’s personal residence (a secure compound protected by U.S. Secret Service agents and used during the Trump presidency to conduct the official business of the United States),” Kise wrote.

Kise, however, does not mention that Trump was the only president who has removed documents marked at the highest levels of classification, which, if disclosed, could compromise the lives of intelligence assets in other countries, as Trump is accused of doing in a DOJ filing.

It is unclear when and how the high court might act, although Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday evening set a 5 p.m., October 11, deadline for the Department of Justice to file its response.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Judge rules Trump can ignore Special Master’s order to prove claim FBI ‘planted’ docs

October 3, 2022

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen Cannon—who was nominated to the court by former President Donald Trump in April 2020—ruled on Thursday, September 29, that Trump does not have to comply with an order by the Special Master to put up or shut up about his claims that the FBI “planted” information among documents that agents seized from Mar-a-Lago, reports HuffPost.

Special Master Raymond Dearie—a federal judge who was recommended by Trump’s own legal team—had given the former president’s lawyers until Friday to confirm or refute an inventory list of items taken by the FBI agents that was provided by the Justice Department.

Dearie’s order, in essence, demanded proof of Trump’s claims that some White House files agents confiscated at Mar-a-Lago had been “planted.” It was a claim pointedly not ever made by his attorneys.

“This submission shall be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory,” Dearie, a former federal prosecutor and a U.S. district judge in Brooklyn, New York, said when he issued the order.

Trump said that he and family members watched agents search sections of his Mar-a-Lago home and resort on surveillance cameras—raising the question of how the FBI could have secretly planted evidence at the same time.

Two lawyers for Trump were also at Mar-a-Lago during the search, and one signed off on a list of boxes and “miscellaneous top secret documents” that were removed.

In a letter written on Sunday, September 25, and made public late Wednesday, Trump’s team attempted to duck Dearie’s demand.

“Because the Special Master’s case management plan exceeds the grant of authority from the District Court on this issue, plaintiff must object,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Cannon agreed in her order Thursday, saying Trump’s attorneys would not be required to affirm the accuracy of the FBI’s inventory from Mar-a-Lago before getting a chance to review the records themselves.

“There shall be no separate requirement on Plaintiff at this stage, prior to the review of any of the seized materials. … The Court’s Appointment Order did not contemplate that obligation,” Cannon wrote.

Her order also extended the timeline to review the documents Trump took from the White House to stash at Mar-a-Lago from November 30 until December 16. The records, which belong to the public, are supposed to be held by the National Archives.

Dearie is supposed to be reviewing the several boxes of documents to determine if any may be protected by lawyer-client or executive privilege.

While Dearie appeared to be speeding up the process, Cannon is slowing it down— which will delay revealing any damning information until after the midterm elections.

In a blow to Trump, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that the Justice Department can resume reviewing the seized classified records—blocking a portion of a stay issued earlier by Cannon. The appeals court also prohibited Dearie from vetting the documents marked classified.

After the ruling, Cannon—whose decision in Trump’s favor protecting the records seized at Mar-a-Lago has been criticized by several legal expert— amended her own order. It now states that material subject to a special master review no longer includes the “approximately one-hundred documents bearing classification markings.”

Research contact: @HuffPost