Welcome to the weekend! Here are the strengths of the white collar of the week:
Trump lawyers have deposited their Brief in the 11th circuit In the appeal by the Special Council Jack Smith of rejection by Judge Cannon of the case. Unsurprisingly, they argued that Cannon’s decision was legally healthy and correct. They made arguments now familiar according to which the appointment of Smith was unconstitutional because there is no law which explicitly provides for the appointment of a special lawyer, as required by the clause of the appointments of the Constitution. They also briefly support that Smith acts as a “senior director” under the Constitution which should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and that the financing of the Smith office violates the credit clause of the Constitution.
As we have noted here, Cannon’s decision is an aberrant value. It seems to be seized by 150 years of practice of the Ministry of Justice, the decisions of the other courts and the language of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nixon c. UNITED STATES. I expect the 11th circuit to be reversed. However, I am not as confident of what the current Supreme Court will do if it decides to weigh.
The Walt Nauta defendant asked for an extension of three days to deposit his own memory, it is therefore due tomorrow, on 28. Smith’s response file will be due at the end of November and the case should be provided for an oral argument.
There is also an interesting secondary history in Florida involving the Cannon judge. There have been many calls to Smith to seek to remove the canons from the case, given his fight and his decisions that seem to be biased in favor of Trump. At that time, Smith did not ask for his withdrawal, although two friendship The memories placed in the 11th circuit make this argument.
Now, the question of Judge Cannon’s challenge in a case linked to Trump appeared in a different framework. The continuation of Ryan Routh, the prior assassin of Trump of his Florida golf course, was also randomly assigned to Cannon. Routh has now moved to make Cannon reject. He maintains that the public could reasonably question Cannon’s impartiality in a case where Trump was the victim. He underlines the facts according to which Trump named it, welcomed him several times in public and could reward her with a higher appointment in court if he wins the re-election. In his response, he also underlined the recent press reports that Trump could consider Cannon for the Attorney General in his next administration.
Roth is continued by lawyers from the Ministry of Justice and his request placed them in an interesting box. If they have opposed Roth’s request by arguing that there is no reason to believe that Cannon could not be fair and impartial in a case involving Trump, would it undermine Smith’s arguments in a later assertion that Cannon should be removed from his case?
The Doj ended up opposing Roth’s request to challenge itself on Cannon, but that’s not what you would call vigorous opposition. Their argument does only one and a half pages and only says that Routh did not comply with the legal standard to require that the Recurrese cannon. Prosecutors say nothing at all about Cannon herself or her ability to be fair. It is hardly an approval that sounds of its judicial integrity and its impartiality.
I can see why, institutionally, the Doj said that it should oppose Roth’s request. The request was very low and the doj must consider future affairs and its ability to resist the judge’s BOP by defendants. Routh’s argument was based solely on appearances, not on anything that Cannon really said or done. And the fact that a president has appointed a judge has never been considered enough to demand that the judge came back from a case involving the administration – although this situation is certainly unique, where this president is also the alleged victim.
If there is a time when Smith seeks to have the barrel withdrawn, it will be based not only on the fact that Trump has named it and rented it regularly, but on the things she really did in the case. There would be a concrete experience of its actions on which the movement base. However, the atmospheres of the Doj being forced to (in a way) standing in the impartiality of Cannon in the Roth affair made things a little embarrassing.
Roger Parloff in Lawfare had a good article During this week, if you are interested in a deeper dive.
Thursday, the American Court of Appeal for the 11th circuit assertive The refusal of a district judge of Jeff Clark’s request to withdraw his prosecution from the State of Georgia before the Federal Court. Clark, you will remember it, was the senior GM official that Trump enlisted in efforts to overthrow the elections. Trump was going to appoint Clark as an interim prosecutor general to help him carry out the program until a threat of mass resignation from other MJ officials retreating him.
