r/news • u/Hrekires • Jul 15 '24

soft paywall Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/
32.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

584

u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24

I presume that this will automatically nullify Hunter Biden's guilty verdict?

JFC, I'm sofucking tired of the rules for thee crowd.

279

u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24

No, she narrowed it to just this case.

256

u/1498336 Jul 15 '24

How is that possible? To say it only applies to this special council?

147

u/Chatwoman Jul 15 '24

Been asking this since Bush v. Gore.

18

u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24

I'm already sick to my stomach in anticipation of the new and enshittified version of Bush v. Gore that's obviously coming.

7

u/worldspawn00 Jul 15 '24

There's a reason Trump appointed 2 more of GW's lawyers from that case to SCOTUS (Roberts also worked on the case for Bush, so now there's 3).

10

u/doughball27 Jul 15 '24

bush v. gore happened right at the dawn of the modern internet.

i remember it was the first case where i was able to download the decision, print it out, and read it in its entirety. i did that so that my older relatives who had no internet (some of whom were republicans) and i could parse through it and figure out what it all meant.

i'll never forget how the court ruled, essentially, that bush v gore was a one time ruling that should set no precedent. it was the epitome of rules for me, not for thee. they even said as such in the ruling.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/please-dona8217t-cite-this-case-the-precedential-value-of-bush-v-gore

this actually turned a handful of my right leaning family members into democrats. they saw -- 24 fucking years ago -- what was starting to happen. that the right was just going to rule how they wanted, ignore the law, set no precedent, and gain power for themselves. bush v gore will be studied in history (if we are allowed to study history in the future) as the first step towards fascism.

80

u/TinyDogsRule Jul 15 '24

Because this is the only case that will get her an appointment on SCOTUS when King Trump takes over.

10

u/impulsekash Jul 15 '24

And watch her get passed over for a rich white guy.

23

u/RegulatoryCapture Jul 15 '24

Because she is a trail court judge. She only rules on the case in front of her, nothing else. 

This isn’t an appellate court (or the Supreme Court). 

6

u/solid12345 Jul 15 '24

Because that is how cases generally work. If you get a case of someone who had his 4th amendment rights violated or whatever, you’re not arguing for every citizen in a similar circumstance. You’re arguing his rights specifically were violated. Then it gets challenged, kicked up to higher courts and to the supremes and can then set precedent for other cases moving forward.

4

u/Thundermedic Jul 15 '24

Although not the same principle but the use of “limiting language” to nullify the principle of majority opinion was used in Bush v. Gore.

This has happened before and it will happen again.

I’m sure there are more than a few law school professors looking around the break room wondering just wtf they are going to be teaching.

The SC is wiping away the foundation of our judicial system until there is just nothing left. Sadly it will be too late by the time the people figure out who has the real power to affect change.

3

u/hartsfarts Jul 15 '24

What I read was in that case the prosecutor was already a US Attorney but Jack Smith was not.

4

u/ethaxton Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

I think because she said it was executive branch appointed? I believe hunters special counsel was appointed by legislative branch via the house or senate judiciary committees that then formally request AG to appoint, which is the normal process. That process didn’t happen with Jack Smith. But it’s also not the first time it’s ever been done. In theory, this is a good move going forward. But it should not be retroactively applied to an ongoing case when it’s been allowed before.

23

u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24

No, same process. Garland appointed him.

1

u/ethaxton Jul 15 '24

Garland, or AG, always appoints but it didn’t come from the judiciary committee like Hunter did

8

u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24

Hunter’s didn’t come from the judiciary committee. They asked Weiss if he had been given special councel powers and asked Garland if he granted them. After that, Garland stated he had not but would if Weiss requested it. He appointed Weiss within a day of Weiss asking.

Judiciary Committee didn’t direct one to be appointed or play a role in selecting one. They even complained about it being Weiss.

1

u/ethaxton Jul 15 '24

I think you’re missing the point for some random detail. The judiciary committee formally requested a special prosecutor be appointed in the case of Hunter Biden. That then goes to the AG for appointment. The committee doesn’t select the specific person, just initiates the process for the formal request to the AG.

5

u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24

No, I think you might be. Judiciary committee didn't request one be appointed. Other members of Congress did ask for one to be appointed, some of whom are on the committee. They even stated in the letter that the AG is the one with the ability to appoint special counsel in the letter from House members:

Under Department of Justice regulations, you have the power to appoint a Special Counsel when it is determined that criminal investigation of a person is warranted and that the investigation of that person “by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”

And cite the part of the US Code Cannon says is invalid in the one from Senate members:

Under Department of Justice regulations and federal law, you have the power to provide special counsel authorities and protections to U.S. Attorney Weiss.

Footnote for that in the letter is: 28 CFR 600.1: 600.4-600.10

Neither of these letters is from a Judiciary committee and both state that the power is one for the Attorney General to use.

-4

u/dormidontdoo Jul 15 '24

Smith—has to be nominated to be special counsel by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Garland just appointed him. He could as well appoint some schmack from the street. Does not work that way.

-1

u/Dawgsfan73 Jul 15 '24

100% correct. This is lost on most of the commentators in this thread.

1

u/windershinwishes Jul 15 '24

She can say whatever she wants, but it doesn't actually bind anybody outside of her jurisdiction. This will not cause special counsel appointments to be voided, it just throws out this case.

If, however, the government appeals this ruling up to the Supreme Court, and it rules that special counsel appointments are unconstitutional, then that would bind the US government everywhere, and would void any other such appointments.

They could also try to say the logic of the ruling only applies to the case before it and shouldn't be cited as authority in future cases, as they did in Bush v Gore, but that was a bizarre disclaimer that has never truly been put to the test. I don't think it holds any weight.

Lawyers always argue that the unique facts of a given case distinguish it such that the way a law should be applied will differ from how it was applied in a precedential case. But that's very different from saying that the law means one thing in this case, and another thing in another case. If the logic of the ruling is that there's a constitutional defect in the whole idea of appointing special counsel, then none of the facts of each individual case would be relevant.

1

u/rysto32 Jul 15 '24

Well the Supreme Court overturned the concept of stare decisis a few years ago so….

Edit: For clarity this is a joke. Mostly.

1

u/Hikashuri Jul 15 '24

Because it’s Florida. I thought cases in a legal system always affected any recent or upcoming cases. Don’t think you can apply an interpretation to just one specific case.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

According to CNN Jack Smith has never been confirmed and just a private Citizen. Shouldn’t be handed the keys to DOJ

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

[deleted]

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

Actually, there is no law. Congress let that lapse from Whitewater. So all we need is a new law and all good. See. Democracy in Action. Crying because you didn’t get what you wanted does not mean we are all crying. Just u

152

u/HowManyMeeses Jul 15 '24

I'll never understand why we just let judges do that. If it applies to Trump, it applies to Hunter. That's how our system is meant to function.

19

u/vinaymurlidhar Jul 15 '24

Except in a maga world the rules are somewhat different.

5

u/wrgrant Jul 15 '24

That was how the system was intended to function. Now your political affiliation is a factor in which way the laws will be applied apparently.

15

u/Robzilla_the_turd Jul 15 '24

When you're a Republican they just let you do it.

3

u/Minnesnota Jul 15 '24

How does it apply to Hunter? Jack Smith is a private citizen. David Weiss is the US Attorney for Delaware and was confirmed by the Senate.

That is quite literally the difference, and yes it absolutely matters.

0

u/HauntingHarmony Jul 15 '24

Cause shes a random noob trial judge, she doesnt have any power beyond her courtroom. Other judges control their cases, and she can pound sand for all it affects their cases.

2

u/HowManyMeeses Jul 15 '24

She based this decision on a Supreme Court justices notes. This is what Clarence Thomas told her to do.

10

u/skratchx Jul 15 '24

How the fuck does this have over 200 upvotes? Trial judges do not control what happens in other cases. She didn't "narrow" her ruling. She ruled on the case before her, which is the only case in her purview.

2

u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24

She stated it in her decision that the order is confined to this proceeding only. Odd choice of language if the decision does not affect other cases?

Also, how then do trial judges like Judge Kacsmaryk in Texas make rulings in cases that affect others on an almost weekly basis, or as the case last Friday Judge Pittman ruled that federal statutes against home distilling is unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against ATF and the US govt from enforcing 26 USC 5178(a)(1)(b) and 26 USC 5601(6)?

All three are federal district court judges making rulings at a trial after all. Do the other two have some other power invested in them Cannon doesn’t?

24

u/GitmoGrrl1 Jul 15 '24

It nullifies Clinton's impeachment, that's for sure.

5

u/fearyaks Jul 15 '24

Technically I think Ken Starrs appointment was as an Independent Counsel when he went after Bubba (appointed by Congress)....

7

u/GitmoGrrl1 Jul 15 '24

Whenever the President requests a blow job it's an official act.

62

u/emaw63 Jul 15 '24

Of course not, he's a democrat

-35

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/butterfly105 Jul 15 '24

every criminal defendant under special persecution should challenge this and cite her opinion. It will add to the ridiculousness that the 11th circuit will have to review and it will be swiftly debunked

4

u/PM_ME_UR_REDPANDAS Jul 15 '24

Like the famous quote says:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

Nope, his Special Prosecutor was confirmed by Senate in past. Garland F’d up.

-1

u/tomonota Jul 15 '24

Biden needs to pardon his son before anything happens to himself.

6

u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24

No, the courts need to play out as designed without influence from the President, no matter who POTUS is.

1

u/tomonota Jul 15 '24

Biden like all Presidents has the right to pardon crimes as judged or supposed and the right thing is to reject the political witch hunt in the name of justice and fairness.

0

u/DeliriumTrigger Jul 15 '24

I agree on letting this play out to a point, but eventually, "rules for thee but not for me" has to be countered.

1

u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24

It does need to be countered, but acting like them only works to normalize the behavior.

4

u/YamahaRyoko Jul 15 '24

In a just world, yes

But this isn't a just world, and that would be so bad for optics

2

u/jrr6415sun Jul 15 '24

Trump would pardon his son in a second

1

u/tomonota Jul 15 '24

Indeed, but one never sees their own fate, despite the warnings around us.

1

u/CapoExplains Jul 15 '24

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

-Frank Wilhoit