Judge Aileen Cannon Dismisses Donald Trump’s Documents Challenge

Judge Ailenn Cannon has just dismissed Trump’s document challenge for lack of jurisdiction.

After 98 days, DOJ can finally use the unclassified documents seized with a lawful warrant in the investigation of Donald Trump’s stolen documents.

175 replies
  1. Fraud Guy says:

    I know this is standard legalese, but it sounds like leaving in a huff. Or maybe a minute [order] and a huff.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          When you’ve had your ears pinned back the way Cannon’s were by a very conservative appellate court, the usual response is to lay low for a while, and issue the bare minimum order that’s required.

        • Zirc says:

          “exactly the order she had to issue” — Was she required to issue this order by the 11th Circuit’s decision? Or was their decision enough to enable the Govt’s review of the documents?


          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            The case was remanded to Cannon, with instructions to do precisely this. She did the minimum, which is enough.

      • Al_12DEC2022_1212h says:

        This should have been dismissed from the outset. She ran interference for her benefactor Trump until she got smacked down by the circuit court. Unqualified hack.

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. “Al” is too short and has been temporarily modified to note the time of your first comment. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • bmaz says:

          Cannon is not “unqualified”. She has an undergrad from Duke and a JD from Michigan. She did not roll in off the Liberty U turnip truck. She also worked initially with some really talented people at Gibson Dunn before spending 7-8 years as an accomplished AUSA in SDFL.

          You may not like her political leanings and FedSoc background (neither do I) but calling Cannon an unqualified hack is ludicrous.

            • bmaz says:

              Do not think that right either. She is not a hack and has principles, just not ones we personally agree with. There are a lot worse and more dangerous federal judges than Cannon.

              • JOHN BROOKS says:

                Main part of your argument is that she is not a ‘hack’ and that she has morals and political leanings that she is entitled to. I agree with the last bit, but she went so far out on a limb with the legality and moralistic view that she could not see her way back. She didn’t allow, she actioned and invited into her court room her political views which ultimately led her to make groundless decisions, like preventing the DOJ from seeing the ‘classified’ documents that were legally and duly removed from Trump’s residence. Documents that he had absolutely no claim on, even a foreign government’s nuclear capabilities. She propagated his criminal theft of those documents from their bona fida keepers.

                • bmaz says:

                  “She propagated his criminal theft of those documents from their bona fida keepers.”

                  What? You are saying Cannon was an active conspirator and accomplice? Seriously?

                • earlofhuntingdon says:

                  Cannon is not the principal villain in this piece. Her being in political agreement with a litigant is not aiding and abetting their prior conduct. Her actions were, however, manifestly incorrect, and she has received the usual sanction for them: an ignominious reversal. Let that thought propagate before trying to rope her into an illegal conspiracy.

                  • Charles Wolf says:

                    I’m gonna make you a Federal Judge in the district where I live.
                    Someday I may ask you for a favor …

                  • timbozone says:

                    Why did she do what she did? What was her motivation in trying to slow down the investigation into Trump here? She made some extraordinary legal reaches here, something that some in this comment thread have claimed that non-hacks are apparently qualified to make on federal benches. So, she’s not a hack, eh? Then why did she do what she did? Who in the US benefited from her actions in this case exactly? But she’s not a hack…

                • bmaz says:

                  Oh, and how exactly did YOU know, for certain, that there was no jurisdiction when the fucking DOJ was agreeing to it???

                  Riddle me that, Batman.

                  • BernardC says:

                    @bmaz: Could you please explain how “the fucking DOJ was agreeing to it?” (Not a rhetorical question.) Are you inferring that from a lack of a timely objection, or what? If they agreed to it–“it” being the jurisdiction–then why did they appeal it? And wasn’t one basis of their appeal the lack of jurisdiction? (Does it bug you that there’s no spell checking on this fucking thing?)

                    Second question: Does every commenter need to show their bar number for you to not make an ad hominem attack laced with a curse word?

                    [[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You have previously commented as “Bernard R Cuzzillo” and “Bernard R Cuzzillo.” I will change this comment to “BernardC” since it appears you have two other comments pending under that username. Make a note of it.

                    And please get off the topic of how the moderation works here, focus on the topic which is Cannon’s dismissal of Trump’s documents challenge. Thanks. /~Rayne]

                  • SelaSela says:

                    I’m not familiar with the fucking DOJ. But at least the regular, non-fucking DOJ argued for lack of jurisdiction in their response to Trumps motion. In the summary:

                    ” Furthermore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenges to the validity of the search warrant and his arguments for returning or suppressing the materials seized”

                  • Gerard Plourde says:

                    If you read the 11th Circuit opinion, it’s clear that the long-settled law and precedent shows how far afield her rulings were. Her decision to allow a civil proceeding in equity to interfere with a criminal investigation is a serious judicial overreach that her training at a top-tier law school and of which her clerking experience, and her employment as a prosecutor in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department should have informed her.

                    For her to be unaware of the tenuous (to put it charitably) legal limb that she stuck herself out on raises serious questions about either her understanding of the law or of her ability to be impartial.

              • BernardC says:

                “There are a lot worse and more dangerous federal judges than Cannon.” Do tell. Name a few, please!

                [Please get on the topic, not on moderation. This goes for anybody else at this point wanting to complain about moderator opinions. /~Rayne]

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Try hyper-partisan, which should have disqualified her from the bench, but that’s on the Senate. But she is following in the footsteps of esteemed GOP judges, who see their role as unapologetic stewards of the hard right.

              Professor Vermeule would probably consider that to be making sure that the ruler has the power to rule, which sounds more Machiavellian than Catholic.

              • Rugger_9 says:

                More accurately, Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP for ramming her through in the lame duck session after Individual-1 lost in 2020. That has to be emphasized relative to blaming the Senate in general.

                  • Just Some Guy says:

                    That’s a bit cute, as McConnell at the time wasn’t, ahem, “Just Some Guy,” but Majority Leader of the Senate.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    What part of “control the Senate” passed you by? The actions are institutional as well as personal.

                  • Rugger_9 says:

                    I’m curious about what actions the Senate Ds (only 47 of them then) could have taken to stop Cannon given that the filibuster had been taken off the table for judicial nominees. That’s why I’m quibbling about blaming the Senate generally as opposed to the Senate GOP that actually did the deed.

              • Hug h roonman says:

                Sweet fancy Moses!… had no idea of Professor Vermeule nor Catholic “Integrelism”. (Have spent a lifetime laboring to disentangle myself from a NYC Catholic School upbringing all the while trying to hold some thread of meaningful spark of spirituality.)

                Johnny come lately adult “Catholic Converts” are far too often High RWA Crusaders.

                • earlofhuntingdon says:

                  Proverbially more Catholic than the pope. But Vermeule joins many others: the S.Ct. majority and Bill Barr come to mind.

              • christopher rocco says:

                I believe Marcy has pointed out numerous times that Cannon is highly qualified, knew what she was doing and it was corrupt and unscrupulous, but not hackery.

                • 4Emilias says:

                  Having worked at Gibson Dunn (as a legislative librarian, not as an attorney) back before Olson’s stint as Solicitor and when Ted Boutrous was a bright new associate; I can attest to their standards being high as far as qualifications go. They may not be one’s cup of tea politically, but their associates don’t last long if they’re not top notch and willing to put in the time and effort. In the library we were pretty good at pegging who would cut it, and which summer associates were likely to get offers. She’s qualified, just, well, a trumpist.

                • timbozone says:

                  Unscrupulously for what purpose. Since she seems to be manifestly not a hack to some here, what was her precise, not general purpose in taking on this case?

          • Matt___B says:

            Speaking of turnip trucks…

            Do you know of any lawyers with a JD from Liberty University who are well-respected?

            • bmaz says:

              Not that I can think of off the top of my head. But there easily could be. Mentors on joining the bar are every bit as important.

            • nord dakota says:

              I have a coworker who one day happened to mention in a meeting that a commencement speaker at his college one year was the teacher who says “Bueller. . . . Bueller”? in the movie, followed the next year by Chuck Norris. Wait a minute, I said, what college was that??? He just said a small college in Virginia I’d probably never heard of. I pressed him a few more times in casual meetings and he finally admitted it was Liberty U. I’ve never pressed him on his personal political or religious beliefs, I think he probably just keeps his head down in general.

            • Snowdog of the North says:

              In my opinion, its not so much the school, but rather what you got from the education. About 25 years ago, I graduated at the top of my class from a “second-tier” law school. I have routinely argued against lawyers who graduated from Ivy League schools, and those who graduated from “lesser” schools. I have never noted much difference in the quality of arguments based on that alone.

              Any legitimate, accredited, law school in this country is capable of teaching jurisprudence and the mechanics of constructing legal arguments. What a graduate does with that education is another matter. Choosing good and effective arguments over bad and ineffective ones is a skill developed through (hopefully) mentored practice. The training after law school is much more important to successful legal practice than the law school attended.

              • bmaz says:

                Yes, every word of that. Not an Ivy, but I went to a pretty decent law school. The summer clerking experience and fantastic mentoring upon entering the field was far more important than what I learned in law school. But you have to go to a law school to get that. So it is kind of a weird amalgamation I guess. Turns out “law” is different when you have to go to court with it.

                • Snowdog of the North says:

                  Yes, I’ve found that “law” is different when you actually will be expected to defend your views in court. Especially when those views involve a theory that the “law” is something different than what the prior authorities say it is.

                  Look at my post elsewhere in this thread about “second-year-associate-syndrome.” I recognize that I suffered from that myself at one time -when I was a second year associate, and didn’t have to defend my theories to anyone except mentors who were keeping my “brilliant” theories about what the law “should be” out of the briefing.

                  But yep, then its different when you have to defend those theories at the trial or appellate court.

          • Peet says:

            Sorry, Garden Variety Hack. Go Blue.

            [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

              • Elvishasleftthebuilding says:

                It is a good law school. Its graduates include not only Ann Coulter but also Congressman Ted Deutch and Barb McQuade (in the same law school class but not in the same class as Ms. Coulter) and JJ White (the father of the (modern day) UCC (maybe)). And some other less well known folks who have (apparently) squandered their gifts.

          • Faith_dc says:

            Her “reasoning” in this case, and I use the term loosely, was horrific, nonsensical, handing Trump arguments and claims he didn’t make for himself. She displayed a shocking lack of understanding of the law, or at best chose to ignore it. She obviously did not have jurisdiction. Instead, she made garbage up to help her political benefactor. If she met the bare conditions to be deemed qualified, this case proved that she shouldn’t be on the bench.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              She met the usual academic and professional requirements: excellent undergrad, top law school, white shoe law firm, several years with the DoJ.

              What’s missing from the minimum qualifications are political views and judicial temperament. (The latter is considered, but only in theory.) Like many political appointments, though most often from the right, it’s a power play. McConnell got exactly what he wanted in her and other judicial appointments, a game of hardball the Dems don’t seem to have learned to play.

            • bmaz says:

              I’m sorry, what about Duke and UM Law (with honors), Gibson Dunn training and 7-8 years of experience as an AUSA screams to you that Cannon is “unqualified”?

              Can you explain that “Faith”? What exactly are “your” qualifications to make such a dubious statement? Or are you just another internet scold that confuses agreeing with you to be “qualified”?

              • Just Some Guy says:

                Duke University admitted Rand Paul to its medical school despite his not having earned an undergraduate degree. Just sayin’.

                • J R in WV says:

                  one of my best friends was admitted to med school without an undergrad degree, because he had met all the requirements regarding courses and GPA in those classes. Also had worked as an ER tech.

                  Wound up as an ER doc in a Trauma 1 center for his whole career, retired a few years ago — we’re all old now. You don’t need an actual undergrad degree to become a great doc. Not to imply that Sen Paul is actually a good doctor at all~!!~

                  • Just Some Guy says:

                    Yeah I don’t necessarily think it ~should~ be a requirement, but in Paul’s case it was clearly “legacy” bullshit, not experience and academic excellence as in your friend’s case.

              • BernardC says:

                @bmaz: Can you separate the qualifications of a person from the quality of one piece of their work? Did Monet ever paint a shitty picture? I bet he did.

                [Please get on the topic, not on moderation. /~Rayne]

              • Snowdog of the North says:

                I would say that there is nothing wrong with her education or experience, but that maybe her post-law school training was not adequate to elevate her to the federal bench. I’ve mentored a lot of people as a partner in a law firm in federal court litigation matters (admittedly none of them criminal).

                I’ve noticed that there is a “second-year associate syndrome” with many. That is, they have gained just enough experience to really know what they are doing with procedure, but are prone to making arguments based on “reasonable expansion of the law” or otherwise novel theories about what the law “should be.” I always ask them, is that what the law is, or what you would like it to be? And do you really think this novel theory will help our client now?

                There is a time for making arguments like that, but I’ve found that usually it is best to stick to the actual law and make your case based on that.

                I don’t know enough about Aileen Cannon’s training as an associate at Gibson Dunn, or as an AUSA to tell, but I suspect she was elevated to federal district judge while still suffering from “second-year-associate syndrome.”

          • Bad Boris says:

            My ex took her JD at an average law scool, did fine as local/regional ADA then DA for a number of years. She then ‘switched teams’ and went into private practice; did well there, too.

            But she’s currently halfway through a 5-bid in a Fed joint.

            It always comes down to who people are.

            • theartistvvv says:


              That’s a story I think I someday (might) wanna hear …

              I’ve an acquaintance or three with similar results.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              On bar pass rates and judicial clerkships – thanks to FedSoc – it ranks highly. Everything else is consistent with it being in the bottom 25% of accredited law schools.

            • Cheez Whiz says:

              Hmm. It’s a trope over at LGM that law school doesn’t actually teach you to practice law. If Liberty figured out the goal should be to pass the bar, well that’s pretty clever. Conservatives have been really good at gaming the system for a while now.

          • SMS60 says:

            Its not a matter of having educational and experiential qualifications, nor is it a matter of holding Federalist Society principles and philosophy. But she issued a series of orders in which her legal analysis was, to a marked degree, driven by a desired outcome. And the desired outcome was driven in part (by her own words) by who was the plaintiff. As a conservative appellate panel (two of them actually) and a host of liberal and conservative legal commentators quickly showed, the analysis was legally unsupportable.

            So whatever the right term for what she did, it reflected a lack of judicial mindset and reasonably calls into question her ability to apply the facts and the law in a neutral manner, without regard to the identity or nature of the parties before her, on complex matters of national importance.

            She made mistakes that quality judges seldom make in a career. IMO

          • Zirc says:

            Your description of her reinforces my take on one of Trump’s superpowers: he is able to suck people into his orbit and have them trash their own reputations.


        • Mart7890 says:

          Per BallotPedia, “The American Bar Association rated Cannon qualified by a substantial majority and well qualified by a minority for the position.”

          Their stats also show that the number of Judges rated by the ABA as substantial, majority, or unanimously unqualified from Bush Jr. was 8, with 5 confirmed, and 3 withdrawn. Trump also had 8, with 6 confirmed, and 2 withdrawn. Obama and Biden have zero.

      • Snowdog of the North says:

        No, that is just the general format of all federal court orders. The bolding and caps don’t mean anything beyond what it says. It is terse, but that is also appropriate in that she was ordered to do exactly this by the 11th Circuit.

      • John Lehman says:

        One Groucho reference :

        “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I’ll never know.”

        …and the whole thread erupts into vaudeville

        Aren’t you ashamed now…

        just joking

  2. Bugboy321 says:

    “After 98 days…”
    Mission accomplished! To be honest, I was fully expecting some kind of 11th-dimensional chess move to keep the stall-ball rolling.

  3. Peterr says:

    “CANCELLED? CANCELLED? This is just another episode of Cancel Culture aimed at True Americans!”


      • eyesoars says:

        Both spellings are legitimate. One-L canceled is probably more common in the UK, but seen plenty here in the U.S. too.

        • nord dakota says:

          There’s actually a rule for American grammer–in a two syllable word ending in a consonant preceded by a vowel, you double the consonant if the second syllable is stressed, otherwise you don’t. The New Yorker (I don’t know the history of this) stubbornly uses the English convention.

          I’ve never noticed whether they use “grey” or “gray” (latter is US, but I prefer “grey”)

            • Fcb plus 5 says:

              … if not so much their pronunciation? Good ear though, your Majesty.

              I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘canceled’, neither here nor there, but now that I’ve looked at it twice, it doesn’t seem so wrung as it first did.

              [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

          • P J Evans says:

            I frequently end up doubling that L. And it’s 50/50 on gray/grey.
            (I read a lot of British mysteries as a kid. It rubs off. AKA, in England in 1979, navigating a road in Kent with several 90-degree turns, “Mind the lorry round the next bend”, to with the driver said “What lorry? oh *that* lorry!” as it came around into his view.)

        • xbronx says:

          Reminds me of a clever little Ogden Nash poem –
          The one-l lama, He’s a priest.
          The two-l llama, He’s a beast.
          And I will bet
          A silk pajama
          There isn’t any Three-l lllama.

      • Snowdog of the North says:

        That is actually a word I use quite a bit in my practice of U.S. patent law relative to claims in a patent application. I prefer “canceled,” but either spelling is correct.

            • bmaz says:

              Patent/IP is not exactly my niche. Ran into Alexandra long ago, literally during “Deflategate”. And sports was not her niche, but she is pretty darn cool.

              • Snowdog of the North says:

                Her primary focus seems to be a bit different than mine, in that I’m mostly focused on patent matters in “prosecution” (meaning getting patents issued by the USPTO and in various foreign jurisdictions) and litigation of issued patents on both the plaintiff and defense sides in U.S. and foreign venues.

                As with almost any IP attorney, I do practice trademark law in “prosecution,” and litigation on the both the plaintiff and defense sides. With copyright, its mainly litigation.

                I look forward to meeting Ms. Roberts in person at some point. Especially with your endorsement of her as a nice person, which it seems might be hard won. ;-)

  4. DaveV says:

    What happens now to all the work done to date by the SM ? Can Trump start all over from zero in his demands and categorizations?

    • Rugger_9 says:

      I think no, she pulled back on all of it in her order. So, anything would have to go through Reinhardt (who issued the warrant) or the DCC (for PRA considerations), but IANAL.

  5. Lawnboy says:

    Thank goodness , and that’s it for Cannons Bull(shite) Run. I think the Orange Man-assas in for a whooping and there will be no more Stonewalling the DOJ !!!

    • Spencer Dawkins says:

      You ain’t just whistling “Dixie” …

      (should have been “I see what you did there”, but I’m not good at resisting temptation)

      • Lawnboy says:

        Thanks. Was thinking I could work Burt Reynolds in there, but finding “First Manassas” , it jumped out, and the fact that it was the first major battle of the civil war, tied in with TFG civil war attempt.

        Try the veal, Im here all week.

  6. SaltinWound says:

    She has reminded me from the beginning of Judge Rao in the Flynn case. A judge with no problem making a ruling out of the mainstream, destined to be overturned but not before wasting time.

  7. bcw says:

    @DaveV No, Cannon’s ruling, as ordered by the Appeal’s Court, is “Lack of Jurisdiction,” meaning she is forced to admit she never should have taken the case in the first place. Everything she did is erased. The documents are the DOJ’s and Trump has no claim. He could start challenging evidence again when he tried, just like any other defendant, but not until then.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Yes, substantively, nothing she did during those 98 days has any legal effect, other than to have pushed the episode past the mid-term elections and into the news hole of year-end holidays. And possibly to have encouraged the DoJ to keep as many things out of Florida as possible.

  8. Kim_12DEC2022_1209h says:

    This is what should have happened the first day Trump showed up on her doorstep. It would have looked a lot more professional of her to do that instead of being forced to do it 98 days later.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. “Kim” is too short and has been temporarily modified to note the time of your first comment. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  9. The Old Redneck says:

    It’s worth remembering that he has not even been charged with a crime. When and if that happens, he can move to suppress evidence gathered during the search. As bcw points out, he’d be like any other criminal defendant in that respect.
    Trump’s track record suggests that if there are criminal charges, everything which can be fought over will be, and every avenue for appeal will be taken.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      A question for our lawyers: at what point does res judicata prevent rehashing of these points in a criminal case? These were topics examined and found wanting in a court setting, so does that preclude raising the claims again?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        This dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction, so it’s treated as if the case had never been filed. A dismissal without prejudice is very common, which allows for a later refiling. It would take a judgment that survives appeal or a dismissal with prejudice to prevent Trump from refiling a matter, where the court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

  10. Terrence Sawyer says:

    Time for a motion for attorney fees and costs.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You’ve commented previously as “Terry Sawyer” and “TVSawyer” as well as “Terrence Sawyer.” Pick a name and stick with it. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • bmaz says:

      Against who? Cannon?? Trump went to court, Garland and DOJ played right into his hand and here we are all this time later. Nobody gets Atty fees or costs on this crap.

        • bmaz says:

          By being there to start with. By not bouncing Cannon from the first second. For even contemplating accepting a special master, much less doing so. Some of the most pathetic DOJ lawyering in recent memory, save for John Durham, and he is a different case.

            • Wajim says:

              Air strike with guided ignoring munitions, no doubt. Maybe I should go to law school after all, as I thought the same thing: why did the DOJ even engage this transparent ploy? I mean I was a Boy Scout in the day but . . .

          • hollywood says:

            The order shuts everything down, but I’m surprised there wasn’t some reference to the special master. Or is she pretending that never happened, void ab initio?

                • theartistvvv says:

                  Indeed, I was looking for an opportunity to mention this, as I thought it a procedural oddity.

                  I would have thought the order would discharge, and address fees (although I think the master waived, there were others working).

                  Perhaps there’s a separate order?

                  • P J Evans says:

                    I think the costs of the retired judge who was helping the SM will still fall on the former guy. But IANAL.

                    • bmaz says:

                      No. There was an original agreement as to the SM. That is that, this is done, and for the love of all things logical, people need to put this shit case to bed where it already is. I really do not know how to say that more strongly. Leave it be.

    • TVSawyer says:

      Based on comments I read here, an frcp 11motion could have merit. At the very least, someone should cause an order to be issued setting a judgment for the master’s fees and costs.

  11. soundgood2 says:

    Ah, yes! I’ve been waiting for this. Just standard legalese but somehow so satisfying anyway. Now who is going to make Trump pay the Special Master bills? I think I remember that the DOJ had to shell out the funds for digitizing the material when Trump wouldn’t pay them? Even if the Special Master isn’t getting paid, his staff did run up some bills also.

      • Tvsawyer says:

        She may be open to fees and costs. She may assess that she gave a friendly ear to her benefactor and got rewarded with a stern opinion from the 11th Circuit, all, of course, not her fault.
        Shemight give a fair hearing to a motion for fees based on frivolous claims and using the court for delay. The appeals court may agree, if she doesn’t, that defendants shouldn’t be able to make shit up and lose, for frwe.

  12. joel fisher says:

    I wonder at Trump not asking for a re-hearing en bank. And then a trip to SCOTUS. He could be trading money for more stalling, but how much stalling for how much money? Is it possible he’s not the litigious Trump of old? Running low on money or resources/lawyers? Does anyone think he’s actually
    listening to that Kise guy?

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Drawing upon my comment above, it could be a question of precedent where he’d be walled off from raising the claim in a criminal case. Then again, it could also be that the purpose was to delay the revelations from the documents until after the election where the projected ‘red wave’ would then stop all other investigations into Individual-1’s conduct and the conduct of his minions.

      Luckily, Individual-1 wouldn’t shut up and essentially blew the GOP chances this time. Thanks to gerrymandering and a feckless NY Democratic Party they did get the House, but no one is in charge on the Red side. Nancy Smash is (politely) laughing her head off.

      As for whether Individual-1 has mellowed, I’d say ‘nyet’. He is running out of viable options, however, and DeSantis (et al) have the knives sharpening for him.

      • joel fisher says:

        From this AM’s Dispatch:

        “The initernet has grown littered over the years with thinkpieces incorrectly forecasting Donald Trump’s political demise. Whether they’re in response to his comments about John McCain’s military service, or the Access Hollywood tape, or the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the former president has an uncanny ability to render those political epitaphs obsolete. But the prognostication will definitionally have to come true at some point—and, at the risk of adding to that pile, it may be happening as we speak.”

        Nope. When was the time that Trump admitted defeat? To all the doubters, I say, “Full speed ahead Mr. Trump”; your (GOP) enemies await you. It’s hammerin’ time.

        • Bobster33 says:

          FU is the answer to your timeframe re Trump’s political demise. The FU is a unit of measure of about 6 months that became famous due to Thomas Friedman claiming just give the Bushes another 6 months to fix Iraq. Friedman became so predictable, here we are with the Friedman Unit or FU. Nothing personal, but the unit of time also explains this situation.

      • timbozone says:

        Re “feckless”: You want the DP in NY state to do the same thing the GOP is doing in other states to game the federal system?

        • Bears7485 says:

          I loathe gerrymandering as much as the next guy, but sans legislation that fixes the problem, the DNC would be feckless NOT to game the system.

          Perhaps the DNC doesn’t want the issue fixed. That’s a conversation for another day, but in the meantime, dirty pool is the game.

          • timbozone says:

            The NY DP chose to honor the ruling of the courts in this matter. In that sense, they are standing for something besides party machine hackery.

    • Purple Martin says:

      From November 6-10 (before Trump’s Nov 14 announcement), there are lots of news articles quoting a statement from RNC Chair Ronna (Romney) McDaniel (on CNN’s Sunday morning show, to Dana Bash): “We cannot pay legal bills for any candidate that’s announced.” Further discussion was only about the RNC having already payed $2.4 million on New York cases.

      Interestingly, I can’t find anything after that, and nothing on MAG-A-Lago stolen docs legal bills for which, Trump being the plaintiff and not the defendant, it seem certain RNC did not pay. So, keep ’em coming State of New York!

      • Fran of the North says:

        My recollection of the RNC’s position was less a statement of policy and more a statement to preclude him from announcing prior to election day. Designed to prevent his candidacy being a drag on the R candidates in the upcoming midterms.

        I’d be flabbergasted (but pleased) if the RNC statement was policy. Given the amount of Trump Super PAC support ($) for R candidates, I’d say it would be justified, but I doubt you could find enough bone in the entire R House and Senate to create a single spine.

    • Wajim says:

      Garland: Mr. Smith, warp factor 9! Monaco: General, the primaries are overheating! Well, then, shields up, release the tribbles, Mr. Mudd!

  13. bmaz says:

    Hi there. Where would it be you would have DOJ “working” on that? And why?

    Why are you smacking your head?

    • NaMaErA says:

      Shaking my head.

      Allowing TFG to shop for a friendly judge to acquire the ridiculous “special master” delay was a miss — I think (not a lawyer) that DoJ could have sued to prevent it … and have the 1st judicial review occur in Washington DC, which is the actual jurisdiction for this (i.e., from where the docs were stolen). TFG wasn’t even indicited (yet) when Cannon issued her ruling; again (not a lawyer) but you’re not supposed to make judgements on evidence UNTIL THE TRIAL STARTS.

      • bmaz says:

        Oh, no, evidentiary determinations get made every day pre-trial. Whether from GJ motions to remand, motions to suppress, motions in limine etc. Completely routine.

    • Purple Martin says:

      Hmmm. Perhaps, in “DoJ should have prevented “venue shopping” in the 1st place” he was thinking of the first three sentences below and, per “kept working on the stolen docs case,” the last:

      By being there to start with. By not bouncing Cannon from the first second. For even contemplating accepting a special master, much less doing so. Some of the most pathetic DOJ lawyering in recent memory, save for John Durham, and he is a different case.

      But I agree the DOJ “…kept working on the stolen docs case” throughout the 98 day delay, regardless of differing judgements on their perceived effectiveness while doing so, and on the pathos of their Durham work.

      And I agree there’s no particular reason he should be shaking his head.

  14. Savage Librarian says:

    Bye-bye Guff

    Bye-bye guff
    Bye-bye scrappiness
    Hello only-ness
    I think I’m gonna cry

    Bye-bye guff
    Bye-bye sweet access
    Quell all preempted-ness
    I feel like I could die
    Bye-bye my guff, goodbye

    There’s no more maybe in my purview
    No trigger-happy Fifth Avenue
    Whatever may be that he crept in
    Goodby to expanse that might’ve been

    Bye-bye guff
    Bye-bye scrappiness
    Hello only-ness
    I think I’m gonna cry
    Bye-bye my guff, goodbye


    “The Everly Brothers – Bye Bye Love (Shindig, Nov 18, 1964)”

    • punaise says:

      I don’t recall whether this was the ruling of a three judge panel, but if so (with apologies to Harry Belafonte):

      Tray-o, tray-owe
      Handcuffs come and me want to go “home”

      Come Mister tally man, they’re in the pool cabana
      (Daylight come and we want go home)
      Come Mister tally man, I’d steal votes in Atlanta
      (Daylight come and we want go home)

      Lift six docs, seven docs, all the secret docs
      Daylight come and me wan’ go home
      Six docs, seven docs, grab the whole damn bunch
      Daylight come and me wan’ go home

      Tray-o, tray-owe
      Handcuffs come and me want to go “home”

      *(“home” being The Big House, aka Sing Sing for the Bling Cling)

  15. skua says:

    Gazing at the tea leaves after Cannon went quietly, I wonder if she;
    had further grenades and decided not to use them,
    her judicial creativity had run dry, or,
    if she has gone cold on Trump being the man to lead America further into authoritarian plutocracy?
    Or something else?

  16. anonone says:

    I wonder if anybody here wants to speculate on the probability that the DOJ has wiretaps on DTJ’s phone(s)?

    His possession of classified documents is a clear and present danger to national security, and monitoring his communications under a FISA warrant would seem to be both prudent and necessary.

  17. Ed Walker says:

    I’m glad the case was dismissed as ordered by the Appeals Court, but I note that typically there are costs and expenses, and the dismissal should explain who pays. In this case costs and expenses should be adjudicated against plaintiff. Also, if there are disagreements about paying the costs and expenses incurred by Judge Dearie, they will need to be adjudicated. I doubt the government will have an issue, but the plaintiff is a known jackass.

    • timbozone says:

      The fault that this case went forward is Cannon’s, not the non-plaintiff granted standing by her. It’s too bad there is no way to sue her. I hope at some point she’s impeached…but given the support for her qualifications to be on the bench being bandied around on this website by some, impeachment too seems a far, far away possibility.

  18. Tom R. says:

    This order has been described as the “bare minimum” that the district court was ordered to do, but AFAICT it falls short of the bare minimum that needs doing.

    The district court dismissed the case, terminated all deadlines, denied pending motions, and closed the case. The circuit court has already vacated the September 9th order. That leaves a whole bunch of other orders not explicitly vacated.

    As Ed Walker indicated, this leaves a whole bunch of loose ends pertaining to the special master. Do the September 15th orders appointing him still stand? Logically the documents he got from each party ought to go back to that party, but what about his work product? Does he just shred it? Does he have the authority to do that? Does he have the authority to do anything else? If the September 15th order requiring the plaintiff to pay expenses is vacated, what happens if the plaintiff refuses to pay?

    As it stands, the special master is under no deadline to do anything, but he can’t just do nothing.

    Will we hear more about all this? If so, how is that consistent with ruling “case closed”?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Yes, he can do nothing. The case has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He no longer has authority – under that case – to act, other than, as you say, to properly dispose of what he’s been given. Any records of which he’s in possession that were seized by the government under a lawful warrant go to the feds, not Trump. Disputes would go to the magistrate that issued the warrant. And, yes, the government is not likely voluntarily to pursue any issues with Cannon for now.

      • rip no longer says:

        There were apparently a lot of highly classified documents that were looked at by the Special Master and probably formed a basis for his work product. Are these work products also classified? If so, who is disposing of the material? Does this become invisible to the taxpayer?

  19. hollywood says:

    I think the “bare minimum” aspect of the order is the “huff” some referred to above. I agree the court did not clean up all the messes it made. But I think the DoJ may as well let those sleeping dogs lie for now. It has bigger fish. Perhaps in some other proceeding some costs and fees incurred can be sought as damages?

Comments are closed.