A federal judge who ordered the appointment of a special master to review documents seized in last month's search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago beach club repeatedly expressed his concern about the unprecedented nature of the law enforcement action.
The judge ruled that the seizure of documents carried a stigma that was in a league of its own, and that any future indictment would result in reputational harm.
Cannon asked Trump's team and the government to submit potential candidates for the special master role by September 9th.
Several issues were raised for the investigation into potential violations of the Espionage Act.
Cannon voiced concern about maintaining a "perception of fairness" after the August 8 search.
Cannon ruled that the seizure of documents carried a stigma and that any indictment would result in a different order of magnitude.
Trump wouldn't have had a forum to defend himself if he'd been charged with obstruction of justice.
National security lawyers said defense lawyers would be angry over the decision.
The Justice Department may appeal. The decision is being reviewed by the government.
Cannon's ruling has implications.
Cannon acknowledged the high profile nature of the investigation as a factor in her decision.
The judge wrote that the man may not be entitled to return much of the seized property. For another day, that inquiry is still ongoing. The circumstances surrounding the seizure in this case and the need for adequate procedural safeguards are compelling enough to get the person past the courthouse doors.
She said that a commitment to the appearance of fairness is important.
Cannon decided that the government's own team of screeners, which sorted the documents that may represent privileged attorney communications, was not adequate in this case.
The judge said that there was a risk that the government would not adequately protect the materials of the Investigative Team and the media.
The stigma associated with the subject seizure is a function of the former president's position. Any degree of property that should be returned would result in a different order of magnitude of harm.
Cannon wrote that the public and private interests at stake support a temporary injunction on the use of seized materials. The investigation and treatment of a former president is of special interest to the general public and the country is best served by an orderly process that promotes the interest and perception of fairness.
Several instances of possible obstruction of justice were found by the special counsel.
He cited incidents such as Trump firing FBI Director James Comey and urging Attorney General Jeff Session and White House counsel Don McGahn to curb the investigation. Both McGahn and Session refused.
Experts say the DOJ mapped out strong obstruction evidence against the president.
It was not an option for the Justice Department to charge Trump.
In public view, many of the president's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place. The president's attempts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful due to the fact that the people around him refused to obey his orders.
The decision seemed to be sympathetic to Trump. The Justice Department will appeal the ruling, but the litigation will delay the investigation, according to a law professor.
The judge seems very sympathetic to Trump in nearly all of her rulings and more so than other defendants similarly situated, according to the author. She overstates the nature of the case and understates the nature of Trump's behavior with national security and national defense documents.
The ruling seems to be written for Trump alone, according to Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer.
Cannon made a special exception to the case law for Trump. The analysis will be used by criminal defense lawyers, but every other judge will reject it.
Cannon's decision represents a significant shift to defendants according to a former federal prosecutor.
Mariotti said that every person suffers a huge amount of damage from an indictment. If you take it at face value, it is a significant shift to the defense.
David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said the judge appeared to be moved by an intent to ensure a level playing field and the appearance of integrity.
After the review by the special master, this could turn into an overall loss.
He said that this does not stop the evaluation of other evidence by the DOJ or their presentation to the grand jury. It was unlikely that any significant charges related to this search would have been released before the end of November due to the upcoming elections.
The department didn't say whether it would appeal the ruling.
The United States is looking at the opinion and considering the next steps. The spokesman for the justice department is Anthony Coley.
The original article was on USA TODAY.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
