Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, said Monday that Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case against former President Trump is “simply indefensible.”
“As a legal decision by a district judge, it is simply indefensible,” Litman told CNN’s Laura Coates on Monday night. “It almost makes no sense to try to talk about it in legal terms. This is, as she said, the first opinion of Project 2025.”
“The principle is just loyalty to Trump,” he added in the interview.
Litman’s criticism of Cannon comes after she handed the former president one of his biggest legal victories by dismissing his classified documents accusation in its entirety.
By ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed illegally, Cannon dismissed Trump’s 40 criminal charges accusing him of mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to recover them from his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Smith said Monday he plans to appeal the decision.
“The dismissal of the case diverges from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts that have considered the issue that the attorney general is legally authorized to appoint a special counsel,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for Smith’s office, said in a statement Monday. -fair.
“The Department of Justice authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court’s order,” Carr added.
Litman noted how quickly the promise to appeal came, but said, “As quick as it is, I think she did Trump full service,” referring to Cannon, “because I doubt the 11th circuit has time to reverse this.” before the election.”
“The situation for now is reversed,” Litman continued, in an interview first highlighted by Mediaitis. “That check is now paid in full, on her part.”
“The best she could have done for him,” he continued. “The 11th Circuit should reverse this, unless, of course, Trump becomes president, in which case he will simply resign and order the DOJ to stand down.”
Cannon’s decision to drop the case comes after she indefinitely postponed a trial earlier this year, citing the need to resolve numerous issues related to how confidential information would be handled at trial.
Updated at 8:38 a.m. EDT
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
