Court dismisses charges against Trump in classified documents case
The court has dismissed the charges against former U.S. President Donald Trump concerning his retention of classified documents post-presidency. It was determined that the prosecutor who brought the charges against Trump was appointed illegally.
Judge Aileen Cannon stated in a decision published on Monday that prosecutor Jack Smith's investigation "violates two structural cornerstones of the constitutional system – the role of Congress in appointing constitutional officers and the role of Congress in approving expenditures by law."
Smith accused Trump of violating the Espionage Act by retaining documents containing national defence information, making false statements, obstructing the investigation, and conspiring to obstruct the investigation.
The case involves Trump allegedly taking hundreds of classified documents – including those marked with the highest levels of secrecy – to his estate in Florida. The former president refused to return the documents, prompting the FBI to search his home, where dozens of secret files were found. The charges against Trump were considered the strongest and most legally grounded among the four criminal cases against him.
As commented by the "Washington Post," Cannon's decision – a judge nominated by Donald Trump in 2020 – is a "seismic event" and surprising, as Trump's lawyers' motion contesting the legality of the appointment was considered unlikely to succeed. The former president's team argued that the Senate should have confirmed his appointment since Smith is an independent prosecutor. In early July, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas unexpectedly supported this theory.
The decision only pertains to the case handled by Cannon. It has no direct implications for another case brought by Smith regarding Trump's illegal attempts to remain in power after losing the election. However, the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing Trump's partial immunity has practically weakened and delayed this case.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the former president's lawyers filed for the annulment of the conviction in the New York trial related to hiding the payment for silence to porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Some lawyers have criticized Judge Cannon from the start, accusing her of inexperience, incompetence, and stalling the case. Even before her latest decision, it was clear that the trial would not begin before the elections.
The special prosecutor's office has not yet commented on the judge's decision and has not specified whether it will appeal.
