Posted on 06/20/2024 2:18:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
When Judge Aileen M. Cannon presides over a hearing on Friday in former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, she will spend the day considering well-trod arguments about an arcane legal issue in an unorthodox manner.
It will be the latest example of how her unusual handling of the case has now become business as usual.
Over the past several months, Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in his final days in office, has made a number of decisions that have prompted second-guessing and criticism among legal scholars following the case. Many of her rulings, on a wide array of topics, have been confounding to them, often evincing her willingness to grant a serious hearing to far-fetched issues that Mr. Trump’s lawyers have raised in his defense.
The issue that will be discussed on Friday in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., is a motion by the defense to dismiss the charges in the case on the grounds that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed them last spring, was improperly funded and appointed.
The defense has argued that Mr. Smith was not named to his post by the president or approved by the Senate like other federal officers, and that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who gave him the job, had no legal power to do so on his own.
Mr. Smith’s deputies have countered that under the appointments clause of the Constitution, agency heads like Mr. Garland are authorized to name “inferior officers” like special counsels to act as their subordinates.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’m sure the times published similar articles on Judge Marchand’s unorthodox orders and jury instructions /s
In case you are wondering an unusual ruling is any ruling the Times disagrees with.
Imagine that... the former President of the USA files a motion, and the judge agrees to read the papers and listen to the attorneys' arguments. This is shocking to the NY Times and "legal scholars". LOL, actually it is business as usual in courtrooms that are not kangaroo courts. Again, the Times seems to be faulting the judge even listening to what Trump's lawyers have to say!
Yeah Garland can appoint inferior officers but they have to be officers i.e. nominated by the president and approved by the senate neither of which requirement was met in Smith’s case. In essence the argument is Garland can do it because Garland did it.
DISINFORMATION
ELECTION INTERFERENCE
A motion by Trump’s defense to dismiss the charges on grounds that
<><>special counsel Jack Smith, who filed them last spring, was improperly funded and appointed.
<><>Smith was not named by the president or approved by the Senate like other federal officers,
<><>AG Merrick B. Garland, who gave him the job, had no legal power to do so on his own.
Mr. Smith’s deputies countered that
<><> under the appointments clause of the Constitution,
<><>agency heads such as Mr. Garland are authorized to name “inferior officers”
<><>inferior officers, “special counsels,” act as their subordinates.
He’s not a judge, he’s an operative.
Clarence Beaks with a robe.
The New York Times is grasping at straws.
“willingness to grant a serious hearing to far-fetched issues”
Did they ever apply that logic to the NY and GA cases against Trump? You want “far-fetched”? Look no further than those corrupt places.
NYT; disinformation, as usual.
Or the classified docs case itself....i won’t read the NYSlimes- while trashing the judge do they mention zhao biden was given a pass for doing the same thing as DJT because he’s senile?
That defense puts the lie to Garland's claims that subordinate Smith is "independent."
“...[H]as made a number of decisions that have prompted second-guessing and criticism among legal scholars following the case.”...from leftist legal scholars.
Alan and Eilleen have, committed marxists there can be no doubt, so far have survived the lay offs at the failing New York Times so they thought they would slander a Trump appointed judge just because they don’t appreciate her making rulings they don’t like.
What a surprise.
Remember any article from the MSM with more than one author is always crap. Stupidity increases exponentially when additional authors are added.
The district court that has been receiving complaints about her have stopped accepting any more complaints as they’ve noted she’s doing nothing wrong.
The plan was for the same rat scumbag who ok’d the raid to get this case. Too bad a-holes you lost this one.
Because, of course, seeking to imprison your political opponent for the “crime” of possessing documents he is permitted to possess and were given to him before demanding and getting them back, IS business as usual.
AND, Biden was a SENATOR and VP when he stole the tons of documents. He had no constitutional or statutory authority to have those in his possession at SEVEN locations. Trump had every right to possess the documents.
And the Biden docs were unprotected and raided by his sleaze ball son. Trump’s home is a fortress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.