Aileen Cannon Challenges the Rule of Law

Palm Beach, Florida – Federal judge Aileen Cannon has taken an extraordinary decision, launching a severe attack on the rule of law that has sent shockwaves throughout the legal community.

Sealed the Deal

Just two weeks following the striking immunity decision of the US supreme court majority, Cannon caused a significant stir. She decided to nullify the lawsuit against Donald Trump relating to the theft of national security documents post his electoral defeat, thereby undermining the enduring and critical influence of special counsels. The implications extend beyond the immediate case, pointing to a much graver issue – the durability of our constitutional republic and its cornerstone principle that no individual, regardless of their power, is above the law.

Mockery of Justice

The controversy lies in the premise of Cannon’s decision. She sided with the Trump legal team’s argument that special counsel Jack Smith wielded power too independent of the president and attorney general to fit within the statutes established by Congress to authorize the designation of special federal prosecutors. Cannon’s stance is even more perplexing considering that Trump himself publicly claims that Smith persecutes him under Biden’s control.

For over a year, Cannon stalled the grand jury’s thorough indictment of the former president for endangering global safety by irresponsibly handling critical secrets and intelligence methods. She is now seen as wreaking havoc on the case by damaging the long-standing structure through which successive attorneys general have designated special counsels to probe and prosecute crimes too delicate for the justice department to tackle routinely.

Questionable Reasoning

The judge appears to have manoeuvred her reasoning backwards, starting from her wanted outcome. The language of the laws obviously sanctioned Jack Smith’s designation and oversight by the attorney general. However, Cannon asserts instead that the laws did not authorize such appointments.

To reach this conclusion, she had to firstly disregard the landmark judgement from the 1974 Nixon Tapes case, wrongly dismissing its vital conclusion as mere “dicta”. Cannon even overlooked the perfect 2019 ruling by the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia, which followed the Nixon decision and unanimously asserted that Congress, while enacting the same laws Cannon questions, had given the attorney general the authority to appoint subordinate officers to assist him.

Precedents Overlooked

Cannon’s ruling contradicts all relevant precedents – including those supporting the appointment of the special counsel investigating Lt Col Oliver North for his involvement in the Iran Contra scandal and the special counsel prosecuting Hunter Biden in Delaware and California. Regardless of half a century of judicial interpretation of statutes authorizing appointments like Smith’s, Cannon insists on her view.

Cannon’s abrupt judgement raises more questions than it answers. Is she grateful for her appointment by the former president, or does she have higher political ambitions that factor into this decision?

Regardless, it’s clear that the rule of law suffered a significant blow with this ruling, and it’s up to us to elect a president who will ensure the appointment of federal judges committed to preserving the rule of law and the constitution it upholds.