Judicial Watch Statement on Judge Cannon’s Decision to Dismiss Trump Documents Prosecution

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the dismissal by Judge Aileen Cannon of the documents case against former President Donald Trump, “based on the unlawful appointment and funding” of Special Counsel Jack Smith: Judicial Watch applauds Judge Cannon’s principled decision to end this constitutionally rogue criminal proceeding that […]

The post Judicial Watch Statement on Judge Cannon’s Decision to Dismiss Trump Documents Prosecution appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the dismissal by Judge Aileen Cannon of the documents case against former President Donald Trump, “based on the unlawful appointment and funding” of Special Counsel Jack Smith:

Judicial Watch applauds Judge Cannon’s principled decision to end this constitutionally rogue criminal proceeding that has so abused President Trump and the rule of law.

I am an eyewitness to these abuses, as I was harassed personally by Jack Smith’s rogue operation.

Today’s decision is a victory for the U.S. Constitution and accountable government. This case never should have seen the light of day. Judicial Watch has long called out the unconstitutional “special counsels” and their attendant abuses of Trump and other innocent political targets. As Judge Cannon notes in her opinion:

The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers. If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history … or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause.

Judicial Watch has several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits related to the prosecutorial abuse targeting Trump: 

In February 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top staffers working in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office that is targeting former President Donald Trump and other Americans.

 (Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Specia Counsel Jack Smith previously was at the center of several controversial issues, the IRS scandal among them. In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with Jack Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups. Read more here.) 

In October 2023, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ for records and communications between the Office of U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney’s office regarding requests/receipt of federal funding/assistance in the investigation of former President Trump and his 18 codefendants in the Fulton County indictment of August 14, 2023. To date, the DOJ is refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records, claiming that to do so would interfere with enforcement proceedings. Judicial Watch’s litigation challenging this is continuing. 

###

The post Judicial Watch Statement on Judge Cannon’s Decision to Dismiss Trump Documents Prosecution appeared first on Judicial Watch.