The real context of Aileen Cannon’s dismal dismissal
In a move unquestionably done for a corrupt and political purpose, judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed Donald Trump’s trial for unlawful theft and retention of classified documents. This was done for the ostensible reason that Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was “unconstitutional.” That would be news for President Ulysses S Grant.
Nearly 150 years ago in 1875, President Grant appointed John B Henderson as a “special United States attorney for prosecution” of the “Whiskey Ring” in St. Louis, Missouri. Thus was born the notion of “special prosecutor,” a precedent that has been followed many times, creating an office that has since become known as “special counsel.” Recall that Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate Nixon’s notorious Watergate scandal.
Cannon was clearly acting under the highly inappropriate instruction of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas who, during Trump’s immunity ruling, issued an advisory opinion that the appointment of Jack Smith was unconstitutional. Thomas noted that, “A private citizen cannot prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” This advisory flies in the face of a century and a half of contrary precedent.
The question before us all is, did Cannon make a serious tactical error? Possibly. Her dismissal of the trial will automatically be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. They will undoubtedly reverse Cannon, as they have done once before. Whether or not they do, whatever their decision it will automatically be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and therein could lie our one problem.
The likelihood is that SCOTUS, if it agrees to review the case at all, will decide against Cannon 8-1, with Thomas dissenting. But let us not forget, this is the same court that overruled 50 years of reproductive rights for women by overturning Roe v Wade. They also decided that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution when executing “official duties.” There is no telling for sure what they will do in this instance.
Even so, Cannon could have taken a much easier, far less dangerous road. She could have continued to play her coy and disingenuous games with the proceedings for years, slow-walking the process through her court. Machiavelli would probably have advised her to at least wait until after the election. Instead she chose to gamble, probably as an overt attempt to grab the headlines from the assassination attempt on Trump’s life. She also probably wanted to send Trump a gift that she hopes he will remember.
It was a dangerous move and could ultimately blow up in her face. If SCOTUS reverses her and President Joe Biden wins re-election — the two greatest likelihoods — then the trial will be out of Cannon’s hands for good and Trump’s trial will unquestionably proceed apace.
By the time Donald Trump goes to trial for the classified documents theft case he will, of course, already be a convicted felon. He will also be facing far more serious charges than most others similarly charged have faced, and those others were usually sentenced to many, many years in prison. And, as ever, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, stay safe. Donate
Robert Harrington is an American expat living in Britain. He is a portrait painter.