Trump documents case dismissed by federal judge - CBS News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Melissa Quinn
Updated on: July 15, 2024 / 10:08 AM EDT / CBS News
CBS News Live CBS News 24/7Live
Washington — The federal judge overseeing the case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled sensitive government documents after leaving the White House has dismissed the charges against him and his two codefendants.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said in a 93-page order that she has granted Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful funding and appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against the former president.
The former president faced 40 charges stemming from his handling of documents marked classified after leaving office and allegedly obstructing the Justice Department's investigation.
The dismissal of the case caps a stunning weekend for the former president, who was the target of an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania. Trump said a bullet grazed his ear while he was addressing the crowd of his supporters. The gunman, identified by the FBI as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was killed by Secret Service.
Trump is poised to formally accept the Republican presidential nomination at the party's convention in Milwaukee, which kicks off Monday.
Melissa Quinn
Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Is that what Teflar would look like?
If I had meant Teflon I would have spelled it that way. From the context of the speculative wording and the spelling of Teflar I presumed that a person of average intelligence, along with some life experience, would recognize it as a hybrid bullet-proof, non-stick coating. I'm sorry for your confusion.
"based on the unlawful funding and appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against the former president."
Aww, what a bummer. Looks like Trump is home free, and no amount of memes can change that reality.
meh, who didn't see this coming...
That's appropriate attire -- for Wisconsin. Packers fans always were al little different.
This is going to leave a mark. Sorry Garland, man up and file the charges yourself or turn tail and run you little bitch.
Luckiest candidate ever.
A lucky candidate wouldn't have had the charges filed in the first place.
Or make that a Democrat candidate wouldn't have had the charges filed in the first place.
Expect Democrats/leftists and their media shills to be howling 24/7 over this ruling.
She made her ruling based on the Constitution and Law; not Democrat/leftist desire to get Trump at all costs.
Considering Bill, Hillary, Obama, and Biden have all be let off for far more serious infractions of mishandling classified documents- charges never should have been filed in the first place.
Democrats will continue with their lawfare. It is their only chance of winning at this point. Even if they destroy the country in the process by imprisoning Trump.
Our friends on the left are just going to hate the fact that the constitution got in way.
Garland should either issue a federal warrant for Trump's arrest on the charges of mishandling of classified documents and other crimes that are alleged or the DOJ should just drop the matter
Man up Mr. Attorney General!
Okay [removed][✘]
Protect the gum drop buttons...
I'm surprised progressives aren't celebrating a Judge taking power away from the President. Seems like just a few days ago we were told the President is now a dictator and yet here we have a Court taking power from the Presidency and giving it to Congress .
American mainstream media has completely abdicated their role in the protection of democracy. May God have mercy on the United States of America.
American "independents" and "moderates" have also terribly let this country down.
The media, the independents , and the moderates , have all combined to make Trump seem "normal" and now we will all pay the price.
Can you explain what you're talking about, since you're not providing any evidence or details to support your assertions.
[removed][✘]
So you admit you can't and are just spouting nonsense.
I totally disagree with that. If we had more independants and moderates we might have a more stable country. We might have 2 candidates that were worth supporting
The biggest threat to the country over the past 9 years is the "normalization" of Donald Trump.
Independents and moderates, in large, have stood by and watched this "normalization". Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Trump was NEVER fit to hold office, and that isnt even hard to prove. Yet in 2016 the independents and moderates gave him " a chance" instead of telling him "get the fuck out of here".
The results have been disastrous.
[removed][✘]
Yes, the results have been disastrous by I think they woke up and have seen the error of their ways. Biden did win in 2020, did he not?
6.1.5 is JR's way of telling you he is spitting nonsense. It's usually followed by some kind of personal attack.
Yep, his name is Joe
Trump is being normalized by the media as we speak. I dont see any particular effort by independents and moderates to prevent it. Other than the "never trumpers".
Why would an independent do anything but let the parties give them their "best" and then decide who to vote for?
Why would a moderate help prevent a party from nominating who they want? Why would a moderate do anything to help a brain dead LWNJ that is so far left the moderates can't even see him?
That is exactly what it sounds like. All in the name of "saving democracy".
As usual trying to tar all with the same wide brush!
That's most likely because his opponent then was exponentially worse than he was. That is somewhat like he is now
Imo Biden won fair and square in 2020, but in the last 3+ years he has turned many of his original voter base into independents and conservatives, especially Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and Native Americans who feel he has thrown them under the bus. Especially in the rural Southwestern border region where I live. People that were previously staunch liberal Democrats have had their eyes opened to the fact that the Democratic Party they and their parents grew up with is not the same one as today. If Biden loses the election, it will be just as much the fault of his conflicting and failed policies as would be Trump.
Something we agree on but for different reasons, you think they aren’t attacking trump enough and should be protecting Biden. I think they should tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
Look at the bright side John, Trump getting shot has taken Biden is senile in severe mental decline off the front page….until the next time he talks unscripted at least.
What a novel idea.
We're gonna need it.
Let the whining by all the internet lawyers commence
It's another delaying tactic... This ruling will be appealed. I expect Smith to also ask for a new judge in the case.
No.....it's over, too late in the election campaign to retry an unwinnable case.
You are correct, but that will not stop them from trying. They are too pumped up on the illegal shenanigans of Alvin Bragg.
This is a case of Smith wishing in one hand and doing unmentionable things in the other. It simply will not change things.
Sounds to me like Smith can ask all he wants. He won't get shit. That's what this is about. His "appointment" to special prosecutor.
The DoJ has been assigning Special Prosecutors the same way since Nixon was investigated. All of a sudden it's not Constitutional because.... Trump? This is the ruling from the trial judge. It hasn't been ruled by any apelet court yet. We'll see how it plays out.
You know under this legal logic the House has no legal standing for Biden's DoJ tapes they have been trying to impeach and sue the AG over?
Apples and oranges. Garland should have also gone through Congress.
Who would that be?
I don't think so. If one SP is unconstitutional then so is the other and evidence collected is unusable.
It is not about the SP themselves but rather the procedure to appoint such person that Garland didn't follow.
Explain that.
How does a ruling limiting the power of the executive branch diminish Congress's oversight powers?
Nope................
What procedure did Garland follow when he appointed Hur that he didn't when he appointed Smith?
Congress recommended it. You know, the right way
Did Hur charge Biden?
Is Garland going to charge Biden with any of the ample evidence that Hur collected that proves Biden (and his ghost writer) willingly and knowingly mishandled and shared classified information?
If Hur had taken Biden to court; then Biden's defense team could use the same argument.
Since there are no charges and no court case you are comparing shit to apples.
Muller wasn't confirmed by the Senate under Trump. He successfully charged and prosecuted people as well. This process has been standard operating procedure since the 70's and has already withstood SCOTUS review. This will be overturned on appeal and as I said I expect Smith to request a new judge as part of that appeal process.
Muller charge people under Trump's appointment without Senate confirmation. No one questioned his authority to do so. This has been standard procedure since Nixon and already withstood SCOTUS review. Just because the Populist's Emperor is on the wrong side of justice, today it's suddenly a bad thing...
Perhaps if Garland, Comer or Jordan had actually found something worth pursuing we wouldn't be dealing with the Octogenarian Gaff Machine.
Suggest you read this. Dems obviously skirted the law just to "get Trump" at all costs.
Good info on a controversial point
(From BING AI)
Yes, Robert Mueller was confirmed by the Senate. He served as the FBI director for an extended term, enjoying bipartisan support with initial confirmation in 2001 (98-0) and an extension in 2011 (100-0) 1 . Additionally, Mueller held Senate-confirmed positions under multiple presidents, including George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama 2 . Despite recent debates about the constitutionality of his appointment, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the matter 3 .
On what bases? prior bad acts, IE other prosecutors appointed after the special prosecutor statute lapsed are irrelevant, as they were never challenged, and the supreme court has just ruled that agencies can't make rules/regulations up on their own and Congress has to do it. this can easily be applied to this case since there was a special prosecutor statute that Congress allowed to lapse. the supreme court ruled the act passed by congress to be constitutional, so it is hard to imagine our current court saying it's constitutional without an act of congress.
so. This has been standard procedure since Nixon and already withstood SCOTUS review.
no, it hasn’t. The scotus reviewed the independent counsel statute which expired in 1999.
It hasn't?
But it has?
Can you make up your mind?
I'm sorry, I thought you understood what was going on. You clearly don't.
The Supreme Court has never reviewed the constitutionality under the appointments clause of the statutes Smith was appointed under.
The Supreme Court did review the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Statute which Congress allowed to expire and is no longer law.
Do you need me to simplify it further for you?
Your argument didn't work for Hunter Biden last year.
I expect an appeal, but even if Smith or the DoJ doesn't want to appeal they can reindict in the Southern District of Florida.
Your argument didn't work for Hunter Biden last yea
it’s not an argument.
I expect an appeal,
And it may well be successful.
Did you know that Chief Justice Roberts was co-chair of the team that drafted the rules for assigning Special Council when the statute was expiring? The same rules they used to assign Smith.
I see the appeal was filed yesterday on the ruling, but I haven't seen what it says....
On what grounds? That he was inappropriately assigned. Face it. In their rush to "get Trump at all costs" the Democrats failed again. Maybe try something legal next time.
Each time the chihuahuas are released to take another nip Trump's base gets stronger. It started with 'deplorables' and hasn't abated a bit, where the theme should be 'go big or go home'. Now that he has survived a bullet to the head you'd be best served mapping 2028.
It was a bullet.................stop with the ignorant pronouncements
You don't think ears on on a head?
Yes it was, which is why I asked for clarification. Too bad I only got projection, deflection and denial as a response.
Hunters are chided to not try headshots on deer because often a last-second movement leaves an animal to survive with a painful wound. [removed][✘]
Agree, an experienced marksman would always go for center of mass and Trump would have probably taken two in the chest.
This kid may have been too influenced by video games and went for head shots.
Trump = luckiest candidate ever.
i will just stay quiet on this particular subject.
Haven’t read the decision so I won’t comment on the reasoning but it seems like this probably contradicts precedent and should have been decided at the appellate level. It will be now.
And to think some around here claim there is a two tier Justice system and that all citizens aren't treated equally under the law by judges that were referred to them by the federalist society, and that they had appointed to the bench, to hear cases that were brought forth by a Special Council appointed the same way as back in the Nixon day ,cause we should have known, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence, volunteered as much in an un-required un-requested decision he came out with to save time , money, and Justice under our Laws, from being inconvenienced with having to see to fruition,any cases having to be rectified before the Supremes as deemed that after over a years worth and tens of millions of dollars wasted, it should have been damn quite obvious that Alito and I have been un-wantedly and un-warrantedly pursued by a possessed and persistent, Terminator, goner rogue agent gone wild flashing his breasts and sending naked selfies while holdin up, and then snorting from, his can of pubic hair laden coke, while giving it just a little choke.... said citizen, and then citizen a recently aborted afterbirth child gone deletedly wild, was accidentally gunned down by Mrs. Alito ash she and Ginney play Russian Rummey on ole Samuels phat tummy, aching and a baking, edibles and underwear, for as where we deem fare, no EZ pass for Any, fore not fair without fore skin in the manuel pencil sharpener without a trace of an eraser, accept Arnold
any other US citizen would've already been sitting in a cell at club fed over a year for this crime...
The DOJ can refile the case through the U.S. Attorney's office without a "Special Counsel", and bypass any need for an appeal. Jack Smith could be hired by the U.S. Attorney's office, and we're off to the races. Possibly the case can be filed in another jurisdiction where Cannon can't get her hands on it.
Without an appellate court holding, Cannon's ruling shouldn't act as precedent except possibly in the venue where she continues to obstruct justice.
For all this time the right wingers have been complaining that Smith was too close to the DOJ. Suddenly, based on this ruling by one of their own, he's not close enough. It must be making their heads spin.
Given Smith and his team admitted to mishandling the evidence (and classified materials) the chances of this being done correctly are no longer an option.
Any further efforts to bring this baseless case forward amount to election interference.
You mean it originally wasn't ?
Cannon's attempt to quash the case amounts to obstruction of justice.
But making a ruling contrary to decades of established precedent solely for the benefit of a political ally is classic obstruction.
Established precedent doesn't make it legal. The only obstruction is the obstruction of illegal precedent.[✘]
There is no established precedent. The issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court..
That is a truly ignorant comment. There does not have to be a Supreme Court ruling for a legal holding to become a precedent. Appelllate Court rulings establish precedents far more often than Supreme Court rulings.
So is thinking a precedent makes something legal.
Some people don't watch Law and Order. They're always citing court rulings and they're not always SCOTUS rulings
...
You should point out where I said "a precedent makes something legal".
A precedent is a court decision that serves as a legal principle or rule that judges use as authority when deciding similar cases. Some precedents become legally binding depending on which court makes the ruling.
So somehow you think Smith's appointment is set in stone by precedent?
I'll speculate that the 11th circuit will reverse and replace her, or smith will refile in NJ where one of his crimes occurred...
... uh, I think it's the 11th circuit. my former steel trap of a memory is showing some rust ...
Trump still has to be sentenced in the other case.. LOL
And the recent SCOTUS ruling on immunity may have a effect on that.
business fraud and covering up FEC violations are official business of the POTUS?
Then explain why the FEC didn't do anything about it? Even the DOJ walked away from that.
hopefully that judge sends him from court directly to prison...
in handcuffs...
You will probably have better luck wishing in one hand and well, you know what in the other.
[✘]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the appeal is filed tomorrow - along with a request to have the case assigned to a different judge.
We literally have decades of statutes and caselaw supporting the appointments of special prosecutors and she just blithely rejected all of it.
maybe canon was afraid she'd be deported next year...
We also have 4 Democrats that did far worse than Trump mishandling classified; yet he is the only one charged.
After the shit show kangaroo court trials in New York leftists have no damn room to talk about how any judge handles things.
Because he was the one refusing to cooperate.
Yeah, it really sucks when a case makes it all the way to a jury, huh?
Those past appointments aren't in question. Smith's appointment was put into question and found to be illegal. In the ruling (linked in the seeded article) she explains what makes it illegal.
They were, though, and found to be perfectly legal.
Not really. I read her arguments. She’s full of shit.
Why is anyone surprised about this - she showed her truly biased Trump-loyalty colours before. She would have dismissed the case against Eichmann if she were the judge at his trial.
And if this reaches the Supreme Trumpian Court of the United States, there is no doubt in my mind what the decision would be, and for sure it would be made AFTER November 5th. No surprises when it comes to the justice system in the USA.