Judge Cannon Slammed for Trump’s New “Manufactured Immunity”
Judge Aileen Cannon may have dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday, but not everyone was on the same legal page as the Trump-appointed judge.Democratic lawmakers and legal scholars jointly torched Cannon’s 93-page decision, accusing the ruling of breaking precedent and effectively handing Trump everything he had been hoping for: a near-indefinite delay that erases the case from the immediacy of the 2024 presidential race.New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for the decision’s immediate appeal, describing the ruling as “breathtakingly misguided” and ”wrong on the law.”“This is further evidence that Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned,” Schumer told HuffPost.Representative Dan Goldman also joined the chorus, claiming that Cannon knew that the Supreme Court “has upheld Special Counsel appointments time and time again.”In an interview with HuffPost, the New York representative argued that the “Trump-packed Supreme Court” had handed Trump an immunity ruling related to his time in office, but that Cannon had “manufactured immunity for him” after term had ended.Cannon rejected the case on the basis that the Independent Counsel Act, which she claimed served as the foundation for special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, had expired and therefore invalidated Smith’s work on the case. That notion had been elevated by just one Supreme Court member—Justice Clarence Thomas—who wrote in a concurring opinion in Trump’s immunity ruling on July 1 that “if there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.”Cannon began hearing arguments in June over whether Smith’s appointment to the case was constitutional, but she caught considerable flack from legal experts for taking up the arguments, including from former Trump attorney Ty Cobb, who argued that there were mountains of legal precedent behind Smith’s appointment.Smith has the ability to appeal the dismissal, though his office has not yet announced what their next steps will be.
Judge Aileen Cannon may have dismissed Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday, but not everyone was on the same legal page as the Trump-appointed judge.
Democratic lawmakers and legal scholars jointly torched Cannon’s 93-page decision, accusing the ruling of breaking precedent and effectively handing Trump everything he had been hoping for: a near-indefinite delay that erases the case from the immediacy of the 2024 presidential race.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for the decision’s immediate appeal, describing the ruling as “breathtakingly misguided” and ”wrong on the law.”
“This is further evidence that Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned,” Schumer told HuffPost.
Representative Dan Goldman also joined the chorus, claiming that Cannon knew that the Supreme Court “has upheld Special Counsel appointments time and time again.”
In an interview with HuffPost, the New York representative argued that the “Trump-packed Supreme Court” had handed Trump an immunity ruling related to his time in office, but that Cannon had “manufactured immunity for him” after term had ended.
Cannon rejected the case on the basis that the Independent Counsel Act, which she claimed served as the foundation for special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, had expired and therefore invalidated Smith’s work on the case. That notion had been elevated by just one Supreme Court member—Justice Clarence Thomas—who wrote in a concurring opinion in Trump’s immunity ruling on July 1 that “if there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.”
Cannon began hearing arguments in June over whether Smith’s appointment to the case was constitutional, but she caught considerable flack from legal experts for taking up the arguments, including from former Trump attorney Ty Cobb, who argued that there were mountains of legal precedent behind Smith’s appointment.
Smith has the ability to appeal the dismissal, though his office has not yet announced what their next steps will be.
