How Judge Cannon 'obediently adopted' Clarence Thomas’ 'radical thinking' in Mar-a-Lago docs ruling

16 July 2024

On Monday, July 15 — the opening day of the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee — former President Donald Trump enjoyed a major legal victory when Judge Aileen Cannon threw out special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment. Legal experts on MSNBC predicted that Smith would appeal the decision but noted that Trump appointee Cannon's ruling guaranteed that the case would not go to trial before the presidential election in November.

Trump's legal team claimed that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of Smith as special counsel was illegitimate because he hadn't been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And Cannon agreed when she dismissed the case.

Trump, however, is still facing three active criminal indictments, and his sentencing on a 34-count criminal conviction in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money/falsified business records case is set for September.

The Guardian's Ed Pilkington, in article published on July 15, details U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' influence on Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

"Two weeks before Cannon's stunning dismissal, Thomas essentially prodded her into making the move," Pilkington explains. "In a concurring opinion to Trump v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruling awarding the former president immunity over his 'official acts' in the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection, the hard-right justice sketched a legal roadmap that Cannon then duly followed."

The Guardian reporter continues, "Thomas pulled out a line from the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution and used it to argue that the special counsel lacked authority to pursue his two federal criminal prosecutions against Trump. He claimed that in the absence of a law from Congress specifically establishing the role of special counsel, Smith's appointment was invalid."

According to Pilkington, Cannon "obediently adopted Thomas' radical thinking" when she threw out Smith's Mar-a-Lago case.

"Her basic justification for dismissing the criminal case against Trump, in which the former president is alleged to have hoarded secret White House documents in his Mar-a-Lago resort, is identical to Thomas'," Pilkington observes. "She argues that no statute exists giving Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general, the 'authority to appoint a special counsel like Smith.'"

The journalist elaborates, "Cannon's reasoning — just like Thomas' — flies in the face of decades of legal precedent. Courts have considered numerous cases relating to special prosecutors, from the 1970s Watergate scandal to the appointment of Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election."

Ed Pilkington's full article for the Guardian is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles