No surprise here

 

Dropping the case in Florida

No surprise here.

By hook or by crook

Trump 2.0 is essentially all crook.

Everyone knows that with Trump now in office the Department will move to dismiss the [stolen documents] case against Trump’s two co-defendants (as it has precipitously done with respect to all pending J6 defendants in Washington D.C.). Trump is hardly going to prosecute his two co-defendants, particularly since any trial will put front and center his own actions and result in his being a central witness in the case.

Yet, the Department has not moved to dismiss its appeal of the Cannon decision [to block release of the Smith report] — the only live activity left in that case. At least, not yet. And there’s the rub.

[...]

Indeed, the only legal issue preventing the release of the Jack Smith Mar-a-Lago report is the pendency of that appeal— that is the reason given by former Attorney General Garland for not making it public, and it is the reason given by Judge Cannon for not even permitting then-Attorney General Garland to share the report with certain select members of Congress. Indeed, this evanescent stumbling block (ie the inevitability of Trump’s DOJ dropping the criminal case) led many (including this author) to wonder why former Attorney General Garland did not move to dismiss the Cannon appeal, so that he would be able to further the settled public interest in the release of as much of Special Counsel reports as possible.

[...]

It is hard to come up with a more plausible reason for the Department’s odd sloth – made all the more striking by the new administration’s lightning speed in dismissing the J6 cases – than to thwart any efforts by Democrats, reporters and others from gaining access to the Smith report.

[...]

This inaction of course protects Trump. But it also serves another function. By not moving to dismiss the appeal now, the Department does not risk the report being unveiled – a report that is likely to cast substantial doubt on factual assertions made by Kash Patel. It had been widely reported that Patel claimed to have witnessed Trump declassifying the documents wholesale. Presumably to learn about this claim, Patel was reportedly called to the grand jury by Smith and asserted his fifth amendment rights (as is well within his rights). But Smith is reported to have obtained an immunity order which would require Patel to then testify under oath in the grand jury. Whether he did so, and what he then said (to the grand jury and/or to investigators) is unknown. And what remains under seal as well is Smith’s presumably detailed factual refutation of Patel’s public claim.

  Just Security

UPDATE 01/29/2025:  They're dropping the case now.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rely on Garland?

This makes sense.  That report will never see the light of day if Garland doesn't release it now.  It will most likely "disappear".  And, Trump is either going to drop the case against these two himself, or pardon them, so what's the point in keeping it open?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Aileen stands aside - sort of

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday denied a request to extend an injunction banning the Justice Department from releasing a volume of a report former special counsel Jack Smith issued on President-elect Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

  MSN

I'm still not convinced we'll see any of it.

Clarence Thomas sits over the 11th Circuit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04:50 pm:

UPDATE 01/14/2025:  

Didn't happen.  Perhaps Thomas - or Alito - alerted Trump that they wouldn't stand in the way.  Smith's January 6 report is released.

Cannon balls

Why?  She doesn't have anything to do with the January  6 case.

Both sad and disgusting.  This was Smith's case to try.

Nor will a lot of Americans.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01/12/2025:

Inch by inch

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10:55 am:

Amen.

If I close my eyes, you can't see me

Aileen Cannon would really like to be appointed to a higher court this time.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01/08/2025:

UPDATE 01/08/2025 09:13 am:

In short, we'll never see the report on the documents case.

UPDATE 01/08/2025 06:37 pm:

UPDATE 01/09/2025:

UPDATE 01/10/2025:

Disposing of the carcass

Where it will either gather dust or continue with whatever defendant is chosen as the scapegoat.

Surprise, surprise

Well, this should help the second Trump would-be assassin with his plea to have Judge Cannon recused from his case.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10/29/2024:

UPDATE 09/23/2025:

Assassination attempt charges filed

Federal prosecutors have charged the man who was spotted with a gun outside one of Donald Trump's golf courses with attempted assassination of a presidential candidate.

[...]

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump nominee who dismissed the criminal classified documents case against him this year.

  NBC

Think she'll drag her feet on this one?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10/29/2024:

UPDATE 09/23/2025:

Delay after delay after delay

His lawyers said they have too much on their plate with all the other court dates in his election subversion case and can't meet the original September 25 deadline.  

Reminder: there are two amicus briefs asking for Cannon to be removed from the case if the court reinstates it.  Jack Smith has not asked for that himself.

UPDATE 11:11 am:

Amici calling for the 11th Circuit to remove Aileen Cannon from docs case

The first brief was filed on behalf of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and focuses solely on the removal of Judge Cannon. The second brief was filed on behalf of 18 people and entities including George Conway, Olivia Troye, and Laurence Tribe, and focuses both on her removal and reversing her ruling dismissing the case on the grounds that the Special Counsel was appointed and funded inappropriately.

[...]

In addition to her being reversed twice already, the Amici argue two other controversies that illustrate her inability to be unbiased in the case: The Jury Instruction Controversy, and the Undue Delay Controversy.

The Jury Instruction Controversy was that crazy time she asked both parties to write jury instructions as though the Presidential Records Act actually gave Donald the ability categorize records as either personal or presidential. First, that’s not what the Presidential Records Act says, and second - even if some unsmart person thought it did say that - the PRA has nothing to do with this case. In the Special Master debacle, the 11th Circuit ruled that the classified documents belong to the government and aren’t associated with the PRA.

[...]

They then go on to outline her ridiculous docket, and how multiple pre-trial motions languished on the docket for months, while she held unnecessary hearings, oral arguments, and failed to delegate some of the easier motions to magistrate judges. What they don’t mention is her secret docket - where she added unnecessary time to the docket by requiring the parties to first submit recommended redactions to pre-trial briefings so those could be litigated before they filed them on the public docket.


[...]

They do point out that even though she moved at a glacial pace on pretrial motions, she moved with alacrity on dismissal, waiting only two weeks after Justice Thomas made his off-hand, non-sequitur remarks on the appointment and funding of Jack Smith in his immunity concurrence that literally no one asked for.
  

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09/17/2024:

CREW amicus

A watchdog group is asking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Judge Aileen Cannon from overseeing former President Trump’s classified documents case.

[...]

The CREW brief asks for the documents case to be reassigned to another jurist in South Florida. Smith did not make that request, but the 11th Circuit could independently determine the rare move is warranted.

“Even before she dismissed this case on novel and insupportable grounds that ignored both statutory authority and Supreme Court precedent, Judge Cannon’s other extraordinary rulings and sluggish administration of the case had provoked well-founded concerns that she might be biased against the Government’s case and unable to manage that case impartially,” CREW wrote in its motion to file a friend-of-the-court brief filed late Tuesday.

[...]

“If the Court reverses Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling in this matter, it will be the third time in under three years that it has had to do so in a seemingly straightforward case about a former president’s unauthorized possession of government documents,” CREW wrote.

“But citing the mere number and frequency of reversals does not fully capture the problem; for some of Judge Cannon’s rulings have been so unprecedented that affirming them would, in this Court’s words, ‘violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.’”

  The Hill

The brief

Smith requests Mar-A-Lago documents case be reinstated

The 58-page filing is the first word from Smith since he pledged to appeal a ruling from Cannon that sided with Trump in questioning the legal basis for his appointment as special counsel, as well as his office’s funding.

[...]

The brief does not otherwise call for Cannon to be removed from the case — though the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is free to do so independently.

  The Hill

I wouldn't expect it to.

“The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded. 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,” Smith’s team wrote.

[...]

Because the Nixon case “expressly addressed” the special counsel issue, they argued, “the district court was not entitled to cast aside carefully considered, unequivocal language from a unanimous Supreme Court.”

[...]

“The district court’s rationale could jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing spends just one paragraph addressing Cannon’s conclusion that the funding to Smith’s office was likewise unlawfully granted, arguing her decision on the legality of his appointment underpinned that determination.

“Because its premise was wrong, so was its conclusion,” they wrote.

Mar-A-Lago documents case on appeal

Did Lindsey Graham EVER have any credibility?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Cross your fingers

https://x.com/NormEisen/status/1812855922957422821/history

Don't hold your breath that Trump will ever be held accountable.

I think she may be right.  I thought she'd stall a little longer before dismissing.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 12:44 pm:

Here's the more harrowing thought, as mentioned in the piece by Elie Mystal below:  They could put her on the 11th Circuit, thereby diluting the bench that has stood now as a check on her Trump favoritism.

UPDATE 04:42 pm:

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court proved that it valued Trump over the rule of law when it granted him absolute immunity. Today, Aileen Cannon proved that she values Trump over the rule of law when she dismissed the charges against him. The rule of law is not failing, it has failed.

[...]

The authority of special counsels has been challenged by countless defendants across multiple presidential administrations from the case before—from Ronald Reagan’s to Bill Clinton’s. But courts have roundly rejected these challenges on the basis that the power to appoint special counsels is widely recognized by statutes and precedent. Until now, that is.

[...]

Federalist Society judges generally and Trump appointed judges specifically are not serious people. They don’t give a damn about what the rules have been or should be. The only laws, precedents, and norms they believe in are the ones that help them achieve their current political goals. [...] Trump judges understand that judges make the rules, and they consistently act like it.

[...]

Trump was going to escape these charges the moment Cannon was appointed as his judge, and everybody who has an honest understanding of what Trump judges do for a living knew it.

[...]

Her job is secure unless someone can find a majority of votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and convict her. So long as the Republicans she aides hold any shred of power, getting fired from her job is not something that Cannon ever has to worry about.

[...]

Jack Smith, of course, has no choice but to play the losing hand he’s been dealt to the bitter end. As to how he does that, he has two options. First and most likely, he can appeal Cannon’s dismissal to the 11th Circuit. The circuit court will likely stay the dismissal pending a full hearing on the merits, at which point Trump’s lawyers will appeal the 11th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court. There, six judges who have already declared Trump immune from accountability for official acts while president will have to determine if their fear of Trump being held accountable for crimes he committed after he was president is so great that they need to functionally destroy the special counsel rule in order to get him off once again. Of course, all of those determinations will happen after the election, and if Trump wins that election, the whole issue becomes moot anyway.

[...]

If you take Garland at his word and believe that he appointed Smith to avoid the political optics of a presidential cabinet member prosecuting a case against their administration’s defeated rival, those optics are probably even worse now, as Trump is about to be nominated by his party, and the case has no chance of being resolved before the next election. All of which means that Garland is unlikely to take the case under his own authority, even though that is the most expedient and effective legal move.

[...]

It is worth noting that the desire to appear apolitical is what pushed Garland to appoint a special counsel, which then opened the legal door for a partisan hack judge to make a political ruling focused on that appointment, instead of the underlying case. Maybe the next time Democrats hold power (if there is a next time) they could, I don’t know, do what is right instead of worrying about the political optics of it all?

  Elie Mystal @ The Nation

That would take some other party.  The Democrats are constitutionally incapable.

[T]he real failure of Democratic Party leadership, and most left-of-center folks, in the Trump era has been the unsupported belief that the institutions and especially the courts can and would hold.

That was simply never going to be the case. Institutions cannot work if only one side agrees to be bound by them.

[...]

Once again, Trump has won his battle against accountability, and the people telling you otherwise are selling you something (and probably asking for you to donate money to their campaigns).

Going to the 11th. This will at least be interesting.

UPDATE 08:28 pm:

Sadly, it won't matter.  These guys don't mind being hypocritical.