The Daily Populous Wednesday August 28th, 2024 night edition
Authored by newsweek.com and submitted by UWCG

The controversial ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon in the federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump might be overturned on appeal, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance has said.

In her latest post on her legal blog Civil Discourse, Vance analyzed the 58-page brief filed on Monday by special counsel Jack Smith and said that Cannon's ruling in Trump's favor may not stand up under appellate scrutiny.

"The smart money says Judge Cannon gets reversed, and this case gets back on track," Vance, who served as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Barack Obama, wrote.

Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., on August 1, 2023. An attorney said that Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to throw out former President Donald Trump's classified documents case will likely be overturned. Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., on August 1, 2023. An attorney said that Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to throw out former President Donald Trump's classified documents case will likely be overturned. Jacquelyn Martin/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Cannon dismissed the classified documents charges against Trump in July, ruling that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. In her 93-page decision, Cannon wrote that the appointment of Smith and the funding of his office violated constitutional principles.

The ruling marked a significant win for Trump, who is facing numerous legal challenges, including two other criminal prosecutions (one federal and one in Georgia), and prompted an appeal from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Smith, who is overseeing the federal government's two prosecutions against Trump, filed a comprehensive 13,000-word brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Cannon erred in her decision.

According to Vance, Smith's brief painstakingly demonstrated that Attorney General Merrick Garland had the statutory authority to appoint him, drawing on precedent from United States v. Nixon, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case.

Vance pointed out that while Smith's brief remains professionally neutral, it clearly indicates that Cannon's interpretation of precedent was incorrect.

Smith's brief argued that Cannon disregarded established legal precedent, including the binding authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"They had the option of delving a little more deeply into just how poorly she handled the matter, but chose the high ground," she wrote. "Despite the neutral language they use, they land the strong criticism, in the polite language of appellate lawyers."

Vance also noted that Smith's arguments are not just based on one statute but four, providing "multiple independently sufficient grounds" to uphold his appointment as special counsel.

Vance concluded that the odds are not in Cannon's favor in the appellate process.

"But as we've seen, when it comes to Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court [where this matter is likely headed after the 11th Circuit is done with it], nothing is certain," she wrote.

The appeal is expected to be heard later this year. Smith has made no request to expedite the proceedings, and no hearing dates have been set.

OppositeDifference on August 27th, 2024 at 16:00 UTC »

She already got what she wanted. There's no way the trial takes place before the election.

I know there's no easy way to do it, but she should be out of a job. Judges like her only exist to make bad things happen to benefit powerful people.

RuncibleSpork on August 27th, 2024 at 16:00 UTC »

The ruling was probably only ever about trying to run out the clock, and they were able to do just that.

UWCG on August 27th, 2024 at 15:57 UTC »

> According to [US attorney Joyce] Vance, Smith's brief painstakingly demonstrated that Attorney General Merrick Garland had the statutory authority to appoint him, drawing on precedent from United States v. Nixon, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case.

> Vance pointed out that while Smith's brief remains professionally neutral, it clearly indicates that Cannon's interpretation of precedent was incorrect.

> Smith's brief argued that Cannon disregarded established legal precedent, including the binding authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

She's only one person, but the logic makes sense here, same for Smith's case.

Cannon's been a biased, partisan hack from the start but even by her lax standards, this was a pretty egregious abuse of power and disregard of precedent. She basically brought a discredited conspiracy into the courtroom (Garland couldn't appoint Smith) and gave it preference over binding precedent.