Aileen Cannon Decision to Give Trump Special Master 'Utterly Lawless'—Tribe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S.Donald TrumpFBIMar-a-lagoDepartment of Justice
A federal judge's decision to appoint a special master to examine thousands of documents seized by the FBI from Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home has been criticized by legal experts.
Judge Aileen Cannon granted the former president's request on Monday for a special master to be brought in to determine if any of the materials are protected by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.
A photo of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort as seen on April 3, 2019 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Legal experts have criticized judge Aileen Cannon's ruling to appoint a special master to examine documents seized from the former president's home. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, also temporarily halted the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using any of the materials seized from Trump's Florida home as part of the criminal investigation into allegations the former president mishandled classified and top-secret documents, until the special-master review is complete.
Cannon ruled that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence may continue its probe into the possible risk to national security posed by the removal of potentially highly sensitive government and intelligence secrets.
Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University, tweeted that Cannon's decision was "utterly lawless" and that she has "disgraced her position as an Article III judge."
Tribe's post was in response to a tweet from Andrew Weissmann, a former DOJ prosecutor. It read that Cannon's decision now puts the DOJ in an "untenable position" of appealing a "plainly wrong decision and enduring the unknown delay that entails OR just trying to speed though the Spec Master process."
A number of other legal experts have condemned Cannon for intervening in the criminal investigation while citing disputed reasoning of executive privilege.
Executive privilege, which shields records involving presidents from being made public, can be invoked by a former presidentonly if the incumbent allows it, a move that has not been granted in this case by Joe Biden.
In a letter to Trump's legal team on May 10, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) noted that there is "no precedent" for an assertion of executive privilege by a former president against an incumbent to prevent the latter from obtaining presidential records belonging to the federal government, which in itself is part of the executive branch.
Read more
- Four Key Takeaways From Judge Cannon's Order Granting Trump Special Master
- Trump May Have Sold Classified Documents, Should Be 'Arrested': Kirschner
- Judge's Ruling on Special Master for Donald Trump Ripped by Legal Experts
Peter M. Shane, a legal scholar and specialist in separation of powers, told The New York Times : "Even if there is some hypothetical situation in which a former president could shield his or her communications from the current executive branch, they would not be able to do so in the context of a criminal investigation—and certainly not after the material has been seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant."
Cannon's reasoning that Trump should be treated like an ordinary citizen as part of the investigation now he is no longer president was also disputed. In her 24-page ruling, Cannon explained that she came to her decision to appoint a special master "to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances."
Samuel W. Buell, a Duke University law professor, said that Cannon's decision to allow special considerations to the former president was "laughably bad" and the written justification "even flimsier."
"Donald Trump is getting something no one else ever gets in federal court, he's getting it for no good reason, and it will not in the slightest reduce the ongoing howls that he is being persecuted, when he is being privileged," Buell told The New York Times.
In a series of tweets, former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal also hit out at Cannon's decision to bring in a special master to prevent "reputational" harm to the former president.
"That's insane-every crim[inal] def[endan]t has reputational harm. Are we now going to have special masters in every crim investigation?" Katyal wrote.
Who Is Aileen Cannon?
Cannon is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She was nominated by Trump in May 2020, with the Senate confirming her in a 56-21 vote on November 12 of that year, nine days after Trump lost the presidential election.
Prior to her appointment, Cannon worked as an assistant United States attorney, serving in the appellate section's criminal division in Florida from 2013 to 2020, as well as as an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher from 2009 to 2012.
Cannon has been a member of the Federalist Society, a hugely influential nationwide organization of conservative lawyers, since 2005.
The Federalist Society is credited with helping Trump with his picks for Supreme Court nominees as president, with 43 out of 51 of Trump's federal court appointments either members or having ties to the organization.
Currently, five of the nine Supreme Court judges, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett, are former members of The Federalist Society, with John Roberts' official membership disputed.
In 2018, Politico also credited the Federalist Society with "changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."
Newsweek has contacted Cannon for comment.
Tags
Who is online
427 visitors
OVERRULED!
gee, there sure are a lot of morons banking on a big comeback of the orange menace.
Tough shit Democrats, deal with it.The left has been shopping judges....like forever. Just look at the Trump hater clown who authorized the raid.
Why is the left so afraid of the need for a special master...to insure the governments actions were proper and necessary.
After all, the recent witch hunts and faux investigations by the DOJ and FBI haven't exactly inspired confidence.
[deleted]
removed for context
No, liberals run around calling white nationalists and rightwing extremists who are more loyal to a populist leader and wannabe dictator than to our constitution and who continue to defend and deflect for their fellow rightwing conservatives who violently attacked our capital in an attempt to overturn election results and install their leader into power 'fascists'.
Fascism: noun - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
If the shoe fits...
Also, it's a pretty funny statement coming from a guy who, in 1935, " had Governor Allen execute emergency measures in Baton Rouge: he called in the National Guard , declared martial law, banned public gatherings of two or more persons, and forbade the publication of criticism of state officials " and then "called two special legislative sessions in Louisiana; bills were passed in rapid-fire succession without being read or discussed ".
" Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology. His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism ."
"A majority of academics, biographers, and writers who have examined Long view him negatively, typically as a demagogue or dictator "
"(Historian) David Kennedy wrote that Long's regime in Louisiana was " the closest thing to a dictatorship that America has ever known ".
Huey Long - Wikipedia
Okay, now you have lost me when you spew nonsense like that.
Hard to take anything you wrote seriously after that shitshow of a comment.
[deleted]
Absolutely nothing you post convinces me otherwise.
Just a Southern Democrat, doing what Southern Democrats did.
Aren't you proud?
[deleted]
I wouldn't expect someone so easily lost to take anything seriously. And if it was such a "shitshow" of a comment, shouldn't it be easy to refute? Yet you resort to petty retorts that don't address any points made which seems to indicate an inability to refute anything in my comment.
I guess that's an experience exclusive to right wing conservatives who apparently understood the metaphorical slap on the back of the head from Trump to be their que to start sucking.
The belief that I give a shit what you believe is as flawed as your rebuttal devoid of any cogent arguments.
When someone loosely bandies words like dictator around, everything they say is suspect.
Not everyone can understand that, but that is their loss, not mine.
Fascism came to America wearing MAGA hats!
Indeed, just a right wing conservative Southern Democrat that anyone with more than half a brain knows is the antithesis of modern liberal progressive Democrats.
Proud that all those bigoted rightwing conservative Christian Southern Democrats became Republicans over the last half century because the modern Republican party reflected their right wing conservative ideology and appealed to the disaffected racist Southerners angered by the liberal Northern Democrats passage of the civil rights act and voting rights act? Sure, why not, I'm proud those racist rightwing white nationalist conservatives abandoned the Democratic party allowing the Democratic party to become more liberal and progressive and be the exact opposite of what those racist rightwing white conservative Christians wanted.
I do wonder if those who apparently have such difficulty telling the difference between last centuries racist white conservative Southern Democrats and modern liberal and progressive Democrats simply because they share the word "Democrat" are just so fucking stupid that opposites somehow look the same, or if they're just determined to muddy the water for other brain dead conservatives who are desperate for any cover for their racist right wing conservative roots.
Since you clearly don't know the meaning of the word.
Democrats can run but they can't hide their past.
Funny how the Southern Democrats were adored for decades because it gave Democrats a majority in Congress.
She forgot fascist and obese.
Sometimes it is easy to overlook those things when you are just piling on adjectives.
Have you ever wondered why no one goes around talking about Southern Republicans, or Western Democrats, or Eastern Republicans?
Why would anyone single out a region for their very own party members?
You've lost the discussion. Quit digging the hole.
Anyone who's had experience with children, either as a teacher or parent, knows that name-calling is a sign of immaturity, frustration, and loss of control. Many adults continue name-calling to compensate for their lack of growth. It makes them feel superior but never hurts their target.
Yet it's a rightwing conservative Republican quoting him in a hilariously flawed attempt to claim the "left" are the fascists.
Oh, I was unaware you anointed yourself the judge of social media discussions. If I'd only known I wouldn't have pointed out facts and would have stuck to the rightwing conservatives preferred arguments that rely on 'gut' feelings, religious indoctrination and bigotry coupled with at best 8th grade educations.
They can't.
We are not the ones who are digging.
So, when, if ever, did the Democratic Party take exception to what Long did? Did they ever once suggest he be kicked out of the party? Or any of the racist Southern Democrats should be kicked out?
Naw, silent as sheep because it meant a Democratic majority.
Party over country.
In fact, Democrats loved those Southern Democrats so much they supported one for Vice President BECAUSE they thought it would win them votes.
Your misunderstanding is all on you.
I never claimed Democrats are fascists, I leave that childish bullshit to the idiots who don't apparently know what one is and thinks that people who simply disagree with them are fascists.
Ah, so the largest number of congressmen and Senators who were Democrats voted against Southern Democrats interest, wrote and passed the 1964 civil rights act and voting rights act defeating Southern Democrats resistance to equality was "silent as sheep"? Sure, sure, you keep telling yourself whatever you need to sleep at night. I'm sure many right wing white nationalists, white supremacists, confederate loving bigots and Nazi sympathizers are all comforted by your continued baseless defense of their current Republican party which anyone with more than half a brain can see is the party of right wing religious conservativism. Talk about party over country, just over a year ago we saw those right wing conservative scum bags attack our capital trying to overturn a free and fair election and attempted to install their desired dictator as leader. Fuck those who attacked our nation on January 6th and fuck every single whiny little sniveling right wing piece of shit bigot who continues to defend them.
You may choose to be obtuse, but that doesn't mean I have to be a party to it.
Democratic Party did NOTHING except accept the Southern Democrats because it ensured they held the majority.
Even went as far as naming one of those Southern Democrats as VP.
Blather on with weak excuses, but the truth is there for all to see.
Perhaps your valuable time would be better spend addressing those concerns to someone who has defended them.
Might be more effective, especially with the name-calling like a 3 year old!
And many of them also voted for big government programs from FDR through LBJ. Plenty of southern liberal racist democrats
So that's why Trump called everybody by a disparaging nickname.
I nominate Liz Cheney.
Or, James Comey or Andrew McCabe. Even Bill Barr!
How about Hillary Clinton? She has the clearances...
Ands the stupidity begins.
Trump has to agree to the person being named special master.
Which is the reason Garland is apoplectic. He can't name some hand picked government toady. Which is the reason he is going to appeal the decision in the hopes of finding another left wing TDS driven judge that doesn't give a shit about the law.
Guaranteed whomever Trump and his lawyers name it will make the TDS driven even more insane than they already are.
I nominate the queen of england ....
I nominate Donald Trump.
Democrats have done a shit job over the last 7 years of manufacturing evidence against Trump.
Maybe Trump will finally have had enough and show them all where the real "smoking gun is"; and stupid arrogant ass will out himself.
It will be the only way Democrats ever "Get Trump "
Bill Barr disagrees with you ... is he a 'rino' now?
The same Hillary Clinton who had unauthorized servers, destroyed tens of thousands of classified federal documents, and had her people use Bleach-Bit to wipe 'clean' all of her electronic devices of incriminating evidence? That Hillary Clinton? LOL!
By the way, she lost her security clearances in 2018, allegedly "at her request".
Then why not make Rudy the Special Master?
After the huge amount of whining and crying that a Special Master was even going to be named to start with, there simply aren't enough buckets and towels around to sop up liberal tears if that ever happened.
No, Bill Barr is Establishment. Barr and Trump never got along. Anyone with a brain could see that. Which rules out all TDS sufferers; who thought that Barr was Trump's toady.
Maybe you can answer a simple question?
Why did the FBI/DOJ bypass all of the normal judges they go to for warrants in favor of a local magistrate that had a very well know history of hating Trump?
They found their POS judge that is for sure.
Lol .... I read the title of this article and I laughed .... no, I belly laughed ..... deeply!
I don't know what's worse - the partisans on the left or the partisans on the right.... There is nothing legally wrong with the judge granting a Special Master. Trump's lawyers haven't evoked Executive Privilege, at least to my knowledge. Haven't they only claimed there may be information gathered that would fall under Attorney/Client Privilege?
To me this is a fishing expedition.
I guess HIPAA laws don’t apply to the DOJ & FBI.
HIPAA laws do not apply to national security documents. The HIPAA protection applies to personal medical records, but it is not an absolute prohibition against discovery of such records.
If you say so ........NOT!
HIPAA laws apply as equally to Trump as they do you and I. It’s a massive civil rights violation if they collected that info without getting the permission of the patient.
Massive!
[deleted]
Bazinga !!
Glad you agree .....
Cite the statutory section(s) where HIPAA applies to national security documents.
Cite the statutory sections(s) where HIPAA provides an absolute prohibition against discovery of medical records, whether or not applicable in this instance.
Cite the number of instances where you have been involved in litigation in which medical records were at issue.
Stick to planting trees and building things.
Any docs swept up in a national security investigation are immune from HIPPA
violations.
It's also probably specified in the warrant.
[removed]
The government overreach here is a clear and present danger to all Americans. That much is clear to anyone without a bad case of TDS. The constitutionality of seizure of medical records in this case is questionable at best. Medical records have absolutely nothing with National security concerns here. Nothing.
But TDS on brother, TDS on.
Right, all Americans who have stolen government property, defied a subpoena and had their lawyers LIE about retaining more stolen government property are in grave danger. /s
Nope. They were mixed in with classified documents and Presidential records and therefore well within the scope of the search warrant.
Oh and BTFW Sparty, who leaked that Trump's medical files were part of the documents seized?
Oh and what evidence have you seen that the medical files are NOT government documents?
Irrelevant.
Welcome to HIPPA, 1996. The government "overreach" is 26 years old. Thanks Clinton!
The Privacy portion was passed in 2000, thanks Bush!
Do you really think there isn't going to be a law enforcement exception?
Besides, I can assure you that the boot licking alcoholic known as Ronnie Jackson used to give pressers about how Trump was the most perfect human he has ever seen. What could possibly be confidential in Trump's WH medical records? We already know that Jackson lied about Trumps height and weight to appease Trump.
Don't want to admit that Trump is the one that 'leaked' that his medical file was included in what was seized I see.
Sure he did...but to highlight the non existent organization of the FBI when they raided his home.
They saw what it was when they supposedly reviewed everything they took and should have given it back without any review of them.
If any of the FBI agents read his medical reports, especially after he left the White House, then the FBI violated HIPAA.
That statement shows an utter ignorance of the warrant.
What evidence do you have that the medical records were from Trump's PRIVATE physician? Hint: NONE.
Any medical records created by the WH physician are GOVERNMENT property.
THAT'S how this shit works.
HIPAA laws apply to former President Trump, as they do for all Americans.
Nope... wrong again.
I understand the warrant basically said anything and everything from Trump's tenure, and specified national security concerns, but when the records are of medical nature, ESPECIALLY if it was noted the records are AFTER his tenure, the FBI should have given them back, no questions asked. Medical records are not national security concerns.
The ignorance of your comment is to insult when in a corner. You are in many corners.
I never said the records were or were not WH physician created. [deleted]
Not now or any other fucking time your claimed.
AGAIN, your statement shows an utter ignorance of the warrant. All you had to do is look it up and actually READ the fucking thing. You either chose not to do so or are intentionally gaslighting.
That's a big fucking IF you threw in there bugsy. There is NO evidence that the records are from AFTER Trump's term.
Now here's the FACTUAL issue with the rest of your bullshit is that the Judge refused to allow the DOJ/FBI to 'give back' ANY of the documents under her jurisdiction. Try to keep up bugsy.
Since the warrant had no such restriction, your comment is irrelevant, AGAIN.
You seem to be having an issue recognizing cogency and facts.
I'm not in a corner bugsy. I have the facts behind me. Here is a pertinent section of the search warrant:
In short, they didn't have to inspect the entire contents of boxes before they seized them.
I never said you did.
It is mine. Give it a try.
[deleted]
The CoC:
[deleted]
[deleted]
As previously noted from both the DoJ and the ACLU, HIPPA itself makes exceptions
for law enforcement and in particular for any National security investigation.
HIPPA is rife with exceptions for state and federal laws and authorities.
It is not the supernatural blanket that most people assume it is.
The simple fact remains that HIPAA laws do apply to the President.
Sorry you know so many ill-informed folks.
Personally, I don't know anyone like that, thank God!
Both the RA and I saw through the faux concern.
Yes they normally do, but not in this particular search, sorry you don't understand that.
Triggered? I stand by my comment
And there is no evidence that they were during, but closed minds see it other ways that does not allow for other reasonings.
Never heard that. Got a link?
Never said they did. I specifically said that once they realized they were of no national security and personal, they should have given it back. Your responsibility to show judge did not allow it. If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it.
Others....not so much
This was in the middle of August. Did they return what was pertinent?
Maybe you can explain to Dulay that if the docs were not pertinent to the search, they would have to return them.
Yes, they really, really do.
The govt. isn't allowed to release Trump's personal health records no matter what you may believe.
I'm sorry you think you do understand it.
How ironic, you trying to put words in someone else's mouth, again.
No one is this entire thread suggested that the government would reveal Trump's health records regardless of whether they were WH property or his "records" before or since.\ he left office.
Legal investigative collection is a process exempted from HIPPA.
If anyone leaks Trump's real BMI he has the full recourse per HIPPA as any other citizen.
On August 16th the FBI announced that Trump's passports, medical papers, tax information and correspondence with his lawyers would be returned within 2 weeks.
As of 09/05 the FBI said it had returned all non related documents.
Attitudes between the opposing teams of attorneys has been described by the FBI as
less than cooperative.
and less than cooperative
I didn't.
I refer you to posts 5.2.12 and 5.2.13.
You did.
Why don't you read 5.2.12 again and 5.2.11 . How on earth can a determination be made on any document without reading it? As explained numerous times, documents collected with a legal warrant in a national security investigation are exempt from HIPPA violations. Bugsy is wrong that the FBI violated Trump by reading those docs and making that determination then returning those documents to him.
No one is saying that the "government" is, will or has released any private or protected information about the former POTUS.
5.2.13 , you can repeat until the cows come home. It is a true statement but doesn't imply what you seem to be implying. The law as well as the exceptions, apply to all of us.
You can type it a thousand times and it will still be as false as the first time you pounded the keys.
Because I did so the FIRST time I read it BEFORE I responded, that is unnecessary and a waste of time.
Much like responding to you further.
Thanks
Faux concern? No way, we are family here.
If only we acted like that, lol.
I argue with some of my cousins all the time. ;>)
No.
Bullshit rinsed and repeated is still bullshit.
You are the one who made a claim, not I.
220901 Transcript - DocumentCloud
I'll wait.
The judge made the question of Executive Privilege a central focus of her ruling, in effect, allowing Trump to assert a claim of executive privilege against the executive branch. A totally specious concept.
Not entirely. A president and his immediate advisors have to expect a certain level of confidentiality in order to have the type of frank discussions needed in the Oval Office. I suspect that most people would be horrified and offended by some of the types of conversations that occur when discussing at the nation state level, but if that discussion is open to the world then both the country suffers due to exposing it's "dirty laundry" in public and it becomes more difficult for the parties to have the type of frank discussions that are needed. It's said that countries don't have friends, they just have interests. I don't necessarily agree with the need for a special master for this case but I am willing to allow for a more careful review to protect the Office of the President.
I understand what you are saying, but the legal issue is whether a claim of executive privilege can properly be asserted against the executive branch. It would seem to be an anomaly.
Generally, executive privilege is asserted by the executive branch against another branch of the government, i.e., the legislative branch.
Another issue here is whether a former President has the right to assert a claim of executive privilege.
Per the PRA, Trump can cite specific tranches of documents and/or A specific document that he wants kept secret. Again, Per the PRA, it is mandated that the Archives sequester and keep those documents from the public eye. Trump would have to have documented those instructions to the Archive PRIOR to leaving office.
If the medical information that you speak of was created by the WH physician, it is GOVERNMENT property, NOT the Trump's personal property. The Archives would control those documents. PERIOD, full stop.
If the medical information is from Trump's PRIVATE physician, they shouldn't have been mixed in with Presidential records or classified documents. That being said, per statute, the Archives are prohibited from disclosing medical files.
So, this whole question is a red herring.
This was a horrendous and illegitimate ruling issued by a highly partisan radical reactionary judicial activist. It is an affront to the orderly process of the criminal justice system and the constitutional separation of powers.
It designates Trump as a class by himself separate from all other citizens.
Other than one or two Trumpist sycophants, there isn't a single knowledgeable or reputable attorney who considers the ruling to be anything other than a complete travesty.
In foot note 16 (?) she essentially admits this decision is probably moot as this was another
Federal Magistrate's case (Reinhart) and any appeal will go to the D.C. district.
She wasted everyone's time... to get the base excited and make this thing drag on.
Her decision is a total disgrace. It's only purpose seems to be that it serves as her written application for an appointment to a Federal Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court by a Trumpist Republican President, if we're ever so unfortunate as to have one of those in the future.
not a bright future for her, but she'll probably make it past the 2 year mark as a federal judge...
Needs no further explanation.
Being a Canadian, and having spent a big part of my life within Canada's justice system, I have always been proud of the fact that it was and is non-partisan and unbiased. I feel sorry for what honest Americans have to bear with their system.
"I feel sorry for what honest Americans have to bear with their system."
Yea, you can't beat China for fairness and transparency.
[removed][.]
[Deleted]
LoL, thanks.
[This is becoming harassment. Please stop.]
[deleted]
LOL