Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Trump Requests Judge Cannon for a Pause

President Donald Trump just pulled the ultimate “hold on a second” move.

On Friday, he asked a judge to hit the brakes on his classified documents case in Florida.


Because the Supreme Court recently dropped a bombshell about presidential immunity.

In a court filing, Trump’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s decision absolutely affects his situation.

The rules of the game have been changed, so it’s time to reassess the reassess the situation.

Washington Examiner reports:

President Donald Trump urged a judge on Friday to pause most of the proceedings in his classified documents case in Florida, arguing that the Supreme Court‘s recent decision on presidential immunity must be factored into the case first.

Trump’s attorneys said in a court filing that the high court’s ruling that presidents enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution has bearing on Trump’s case in Florida and that Trump’s defense team should be given time to present arguments on the matter.

They asked Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, to pause all proceedings in the case except for a pending dispute over a gag order special counsel Jack Smith is seeking to impose on Trump.

Democrats aren’t liking this.

It seems there’s now a monkey wrench in their plan of attack against Trump.

Law & Crime adds:

Adding to the fallout, defense attorneys for Donald Trump on Friday told the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision “guts” Jack Smith’s “no immunity” arguments and, as a result, they said the case should mostly be put on hold.

In a notice of supplemental authority submitted to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump team contends that Supreme Court has helped the former president on multiple fronts.

Trump guts the [Special Counsel’s] Office’s position that President Trump has ‘no immunity’ and further demonstrates the politically-motivated nature of their contention that the motion is ‘frivolous,’” the filing said. “Trump also confirms that the Office cannot rely on ‘official acts’ evidence” in the Espionage Act case.

The defense also pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence, which, as Law&Crime reported in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision, expressed Thomas’ belief that Jack Smith’s appointment is “invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it ‘by Law.’”

“Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Trump adds force to the motions relating to the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses,” Trump’s attorneys said. “Justice Thomas cited Justice Scalia’s Morrison dissent, which is consistent with Justice Kavanaugh’s comment at oral argument in Trump that Morrison was ‘one of the Court’s biggest mistakes.’”

Thomas’ concurrence largely echoed conservative amici curiae (Latin for “friends of the court”) that Cannon recently heard oral argument from on the legality of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

Those amici asserted “private citizen” Smith’s appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution because he was neither confirmed by the Senate nor sufficiently “authorized” by statute.

Since the rule of law was upheld by SCOTUS, it’s only a matter of time before it comes to the aid of President Trump and deal with those coming against him unlawfully.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!