ed to t-mobile 5g home internet. and now his attention is spent elsewhere. but i'm thinking of her the whole time. that's so much worse. why is that thing in bed with you? this is where it gets the best signal from the cell tower! i've tried everywhere else in the house! there's always a new excuse. well if we got xfinity you wouldn't have to mess around with the connection. therapy's tough, huh? -mmm. it's like a lot about me. [laughs] a home router should never be a home wrecker. oo this is a good book title. with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro.

classified dobbs case. let's get right to ken del layne nan. >> judge aileen cannon in florida has dismissed, the dismissed the indictment against donald trump in his classified documents case and co-defendants on the grounds that the appointment of the special counsel violated the appointments clause of the constitution. this is an issue that has been litigated in other special counsels, has never succeeded. judge aileen cannon accepted the arguments of the defense that the appointment of jack smith and other special counsels by inference has been improper and illegal. i'll read you from the opinion here. the bottom line is this, the appointments clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers and it gives to congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers.

the government's position, she says, effectively usurps that legislative authority transferring the a head of department. let me translate that. the attorney general appoints the special counsel. there's no law, no act of congress establishing the office of special counsel after the independent counsel law went away. what donald trump's lawyers argued is that's improper. the special counsel has a lot of power. he should be established by law and confirmed by the senate, and he's not. judge aileen cannon accepted that argument and dismissed this indictment. this is very likely to be appealed by the special counsel to the circuit court. it may go all the way to the security. what's really entering here is in the immunity opinion judge clarence thomas filed a concurrence where he raised this issue. he all but said he believes the appointment of jack smith and other special counsels with unconstitutional under the appointments clause. many of us said at the time that that was, in essence, giving judge cannon a leg to stand on

here if she wanted to rule in this direction which no other judge -- no other judge has ruled, and now she's done that and she has dismissed the indictment in the classified documents case against donald trump and his codefendants. >> the entire indictment dismissed by judge cannon? that's correct. >> i want to go to vaughn hillyard who is standing by. vaughn, just monumental breaking news on this case. >> reporter: i'll say this, jose. of course we do not understand what the timing of this is and if it correlated at all to the apparent assassination just 36 hours ago in pennsylvania. when we are looking at this ruling by judge cannon, it takes me to a conversation i had last night with a close ally of donald trump's who is a part of the convention team here in milwaukee. i ask him about what this moment with the attempted assassination means. as drum is calling for a unified america, i said what does that look like. he said in part that needs to be

the end of the prosecutions against him. and less than 12 hours since we've had that -- i had that conversation with that individual, there is the federal indictment here related to the transfer of classified -- alleged transfer of classified documents to his mar-a-lago property as well as covering up the alleged -- alleged obstruction of justice to cover up the fact that he had those documents with the two co-defendants is now dropped. as ken said, that will be able to be appealed to the 11th circuit here. this is a notable legal victory for donald trump in the immediate. we're 3 1/2 months before the election. in about three hours, four hours from now is when the more than 2,000 delegates will fill into this arena for the beginning of this convention. you'll have the primetime address. we're waiting for his vp announcement. for donald trump this is a considerable victory. we can go through the

indictment, what the immunity decision ultimately could have meant to this, as we begin to work through this more than 90-page decision by judge cannon to dismiss. but what was alleged inside of this indictment was very serious, and now clearly pushing to dismiss it on the grounds that the special counsel was improperly appointed by the department of justice to oversee this case. of course, we are waiting to see donald trump, and whether we could see him as soon as today, we have not seen him pub wlikly out of some quick campaign videos that they have put out from his campaign team of him leaving his plane. i just talked with a close individual with his campaign here just a matter of minutes ago before this case was dismissed. i asked how his conversations with him have been like. he said he is in great spirits right now. for donald trump, he's going to be joined by his family here, joined by the closest allies of the republican party. there is a lot at stake with this indictment being tossed here as we begin to make our weigh through this decision.

of course, it will be likely appealed. at the same time it calls into question whether the federal indictment related to the federal election interference charges against him could be potentially tossed. and if, in fact, as we saw from the decision, judge clarence thomas writing in there, almost giving an out, an opportunity for judge cannon to go forward with this dismissal, this is a notable moment for not only this presidential campaign, but also the acts of the former president upon leaving the white house. >> i want to go to chuck rosenberg who is with us, former federal prosecutor. chuck, your reaction to this. i'm just thinking, the possible ramifications of the judge's decision to dismiss this, but also stating that special counsel's office is potentially unconstitutional. >> i'm surprised to say the

least. this is an issue that has been litigated elsewhere for many years. no court has ever done what judge cannon did today. so, number one, i'm confident that judge cannon's order dismissing the indictment in the southern district of florida will be appealed. to your other question, i'm not convinced that there's any immediate ramification, immediate ramification for the case that jack smith brought in the district of columbia. the district of columbia has established case law. there is precedent on this very question, upholding the appointment of the special counsel. so this seems to be something in which judge cannon is on a bit of an island, a legal island. and we'll see over sometime through the appeals process whether the order stands. it is, to say the least, surprising. >> chuck, i'm looking through it right now.

we're just getting it. this is literally just crossing. it's a 93-page dismissal order on this. i'm just wondering, chuck, what is the process -- you say it probably will be appealed. what does that appeals process look like? >> so the government, the smith team, would have to ask the appellate court which has jurisdiction over the southern district of florida to hear an appeal. i think they have a right to an appeal in this case. i can't imagine it wouldn't be heard. i think that would be required. that means that briefings, arguments and a decision could be months and months away. as we've seen in other cases, this takes a while. so a huge win for mr. trump in

the southern district of florida, but one that i'm not quite sure will hold up on appeal. again, if he's elected president, he could simply order a dismissal of both cases. so this helps mr. trump and it gives him another sort of path to legal victory. >> looking at the judge's logic, as she spells it out in her her logic to dismiss this case, the issue of the constitutionality of jack smith's special counsel. i'm just going to read this to you, chuck. she says distilled down for present purposes, the special counsel regulations mandate that the special counsel be selected from outside the department and then they empower that outside attorney to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any united states attorney within this

jurisdiction. so is it that she is, in part, basing her decision on the mechanics that were used to select jack smith or the process that was utilized to create this special counsel? >> it seems to be a little bit of a couple of things. so, the mechanics. one other flaw that critics of the special counsel regulations often say is that the special counsel is not an inferior officer, which i don't think is true. the special counsel reports to an attorney general who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, and the attorney general -- nick merrick garland -- has ultimate authority over what a special counsel does. so i have to work my way through all 93 pages. it seems to me she has mechanical concerns, procedural

concerns and substantive concerns involving how the special counsel is appointed, how the special counsel is paid and whether or not the special counsel is truly an inferior officer. again, many courts have looked at this question. over the years special counsels have been appointed and their appointments have been challenged. no court has ever done what judge cannon did today. >> ken dilanian, thinking back on what chuck just said, so many courts have for so many years looked into this issue and have not decided what judge eileen cannon decided today. what does that tell you? >> it tells you, as chuck said, she's on an island, jose. recently in the hunter biden's case, his attorneys tried some of these same arguments to challenge appointment of special

counsel david wise and they were unsuccessful. people tried this against special counsel robert mueller and were unsuccessful. it's important to point out so viewers understand, there's nothing in this opinion that speaks to the merits of this case, to the classified documents, the allegations of obstruction of justice. this is an entirely procedural issue. it's whether the law establishing the special counsel violates the appointments clause. she also actually made a ruling on a separate argument about the appropriations clause. she's decided that the way congress is funding -- the way the special counsel is funded is not appropriate either. so, again, nothing to do with the merits of the case. i was speaking to legal experts before, anticipating the possibility of this happening. one expert said to me, one thing the justice department could do here very simply is to have the u.s. attorney from florida or in the district of columbia for that matter because some of the conduct happened in d.c., simply

refile this indictment. it could draw a different judge and could proceed. the issue with that is then it's not a special counsel. merrick garland went down this road. he decided because donald trump is running for president against president biden and merrick garland is president biden's attorney general, he decided there had to be a special counsel in this case. now the case has been investigated, the allegations have been made, the evidence is out there. you could argue that it wouldn't be improper, wouldn't be inappropriate for the justice department to simply pursue this case through a different venue without the special counsel. in the interest of justice. we'll have to see what the justice department decides to do here. as soon as i get off camera, i'm going to be calling and asking folks if that's a possibility. >> stay with me on camera for a bit longer. i want to ask chuck about that specific issue. what is the process or what could the process be for doj to refile this indictment once a judge has decided that this case should be dismissed?

>> so technically -- well, ken, of course, is right. technically the department of justice could dismiss the case in the southern district of florida, although judge cannon has already done that for therjs frankly, and refile elsewhere. a venue where a crime occurs is an elastic concept. many crimes occur in multiple places. i have always thought there was an argument, a good faith argument that the case that was filed in the southern district of florida involving the unlawful retention of classified documents could also have been filed in the district of columbia where the crime essentially began. all that said, i think it's a bad look for the department of justice to judge shop. i think it puts the department in a bad light. typically you are stuck with the judge you get. sometimes that's a good draw.

sometimes that's a bad draw. in my experience as a federal prosecutor, mostly good draws. when you get a bad one, then you litigate in front of that judge. if he or she makes a bad decision, or as in the case here, dismisses the indictment, you take it up on appeal. this is a long, hard slog for the department of justice. frankly, i do not like the look of the department of justice judge shopping in a criminal case. >> so then the obvious most possible or probable avenue would be to appeal it. chuck, if you would, help us understand -- you were talking about just a time factor on this. what does that appeal look like? and what are the obstacles timewise for an appeal to be carried out when you also have the knowledge that -- and we were just talking about, the whole immunity case that the supreme court decided on just a little while ago, includes this

kind of issue? >> right. what does it look like procedurally? the department of justice would file a notice of appeal with the circuit court of ap peoples, and the circuit court would set a schedule for briefing and ultimately for argument. we've seen this in other cases including the very immunity decision you just referenced. how it worked its way from a trial court in the district of columbia to the court of appeals in the district of columbia and ultimately to the supreme court of the united states, conceivably an appeal of judge cannon's order to dismiss the indictment based on the appointments clause deficiency that she found would work its way through the court of appeals and perhaps to the security, and what does the timing look like? months if not a year or more. and so this is a very difficult

path for the department of justice. may have a battle on multiple fronts. not only does the immunity decision give the trump team a foothold to argue that what he allegedly did consisted of official acts which would be immune from prosecution, there's no case anymore. it's been dismissed. it's gone. in order for it to be revived, an appellate court would have to find as a matter of law judge cannon's interpretation of foiments clause, of the mechanics, of the appropriations, of the procedure, that judge cannon was completely wrong as a matter of law. by the way, the appellate court has found in an earlier instance in this very case that judge cannon was wrong as a matter of law. your viewers may remember that she had appointed a special master after the execution of a

search warrant at that time mar-a-lago estate. and the appellate court reversed her on that and said the procedures she employed were wholly improper, and it reversed her rather quickly and let the fbi and the department of justice have access to the documents that were lawfully seized from the home. so could that happen again? sure. will that happen quickly? i doubt it. >> chuck, stay with us. the whole question of what is de facto brings on a whole new meaning. i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. lisa, your thoughts. >> i woke this morning, jose, to this. it was a late night for me. i'm kind of astonished. the reason i'm astonished has as much to do with judge cannon as the issue that caused her to dismiss. this motion was argued to her extensively over the course of

two days last month. do you recall those oral arguments she expressed what many observers, including nbc news, thought was serious news about the legitimacy of the arguments that donald trump's lawyers were making to her. not only have two other circuits already ruled on this issue, but she herself really questioned trump's lawyers about this appointments clause issue, and specifically about whether or not jack smith was legitimately an inferior officer or whether or not he was exercising such authority that his appointment both was unconstitutional and violative of the statutes that merrick garland cited when he appointed them. that having been said, you'll remember in the supreme court's decision on presidential immunity, there's concurrence from justice clarence thomas that talks about this argument at length because it was briefed

by friends of the court. it was not raced square li by the party, so it was not for the court to decide in its majority opinion or any dissents. justice clarence thomas laying out what some people said looked like roadmap for judge cannon. i was somewhat skeptical of that, both based on her own behavior and based on other circuit precedent. yet, we see judge cannon fully eliminating this case in a 93-page opinion today. jose, it almost takes your breath away to think about how the legal and political landscape for former president donald trump has changed since just july 2nd. >> vaughn, today starts the rnc. this is just a few hours taf former president survived an assassination attempt. now the 93-page termination of what many were saying was maybe -- maybe was the clearest

cut of the four cases against the former president. >> i want to be very clear about the political ramifications of this with the convention just gavelling in a mere hours from now. you're going to have a steady lineup of prominent republican trump allies taking the stage here in primetime for the next four nights. donald trump himself on thursday night. and already on social media a flood of allies of his are posting, including his own son, case dismissed, hash tash deranged jack smith. josh holly, huge news. steve miller, defund the special counsel. ever since 2022 donald trump has been calling this prosecutorial misconduct. the search warrants executed by the fbi in 2022, he referred to it at the time as a hoax and suggested that documents had even been planted. he and allies consistently told

the american public for the better part of the last two years that this was all but an effort to put him in prison and to keep him from the presidency. now they have a federal judge dismissing the case saying that the special counsel was appointed should have never been appointed. and the indictment and what is the underlying crimes that were alleged, they are serious. they include the fact that there was 48 empty folders with classified banners, 18 documents marked top secret, 54 marked secrets, 31 documents marked confidential, more than 11,000 unclassified government docs, photos, gifts, books, all part of the indictment. also the indictment alleged that he with two codefendants, an effort to delete security video, and that at one point donald trump said, quote, i don't want anybody looking. i don't want anybody looking

through my boxes. i really don't. what happens if we don't respond at all or don't play ball with them. would it be better if he told them we don't have anything. the indictment and the charges levied against donald trump were serious. if the appeals court does not rule in the special counsel's favor and this trial never sees the light of day, the american public will never get a whole vetting of what was actually charged against donald trump in the first place. for donald trump, to the extent one is able to run out the clock, there is the very real potential that he could be elected president just 3 1/2 months from now. at that point in time he could seek to have his department of justice all but dismisd, not only this if it is still going forward in this case, but also the federal election interference case against him and a single place in washington, d.c. so for he and his allies, we should expect from this convention stage to use this as an effort to legitimize the

claims that the case should have never been brought in the first place. we saw this just two weeks ago after the supreme court issued their immunity ruling which put a pause on the july 11th sentencing in the lower manhattan criminal case as the judge, the judge in lower manhattan, agreed to hear motions from his attorneys to make the case that there was evidence that was brought forward before the jury that should have never been brought forward. at the time donald trump and his team, they claim that is again victory, that it was an unfair prosecution in lower manhattan and that if some of the evidence that was brought forward had not been brought before the jury, the 12 individuals, the 12 new yorkers may have never found him guilty. so there is a lot on the line at such a critical political moment as this. of course, it was just about 36 hours ago that there was an attempted assassination of donald trump. he is here in milwaukee. he flew into town overnight.

his close aides are here on the ground as well. we expect melania trump, the former first lady, ivanka trump, don jr. and eric to all be here and a number of them to take the stage. for donald trump, this is a defining moment clearly based off the statements that his allies are already putting out. we expect a trump campaign to put out a statement as well. >> lisa rubin, i want to read because it's important we listen to every single word of judge cannon's decision. let me just read you the concluding statement on this 93-page decision. for the reasons set forth above, it is ordered and ajudged as follows. one, defendant's motion to dismiss superseding indictment based on unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel jack smith granted in accordance with this order. two, the super seeding indictment is dismissed. three, this order is confined to this proceeding.

the court decides no other legal rights or claims. four, this order shall not affect or weaken any of the protection bs for classified information imposed in this case or any protective orders pertaining to classified information. five, the clerk is directed to close this case. any scheduled hearings are canceled. any pending motions are denied as moot. any pending deadlines are terminated. done and ordered in chambers at ft. pierce, florida, this 15th day of july, 2024. lisa, your reaction to this. >> jose, if you were just writing an opinion for lawyers where you say the case is dismissed, you stopped. the way in which judge cannon structured her language at the end of the opinion suggests she's writing for multiple audiences, including our viewers and the american public.

she's trying to make crystal clear what the ramifications of her decision are today, not just to people like me, but to our viewers watching at home and anybody else who has an interest or a stake in this proceeding. as you said, what dismissal means is that any other motions are moot, any other hearings are never happening. this is a final decision of this court. the good news in that is it can be appealed. as you and chuck rosenberg were talking about earlier, the timeline for any appeal less expedited extend far beyond the general election time frame. there are a couple other features, jose, if i can, that i'd like to point out to you and our viewers. one of the first things i want to think about is that there were seven-plus motions filed by trump and his co-defendants to dismiss this case. this was always one of them. yet, it was not one of the first that judge cannon took up. in fact, she took her time getting to this in june, despite the fact that the motion was

made in february. and then just a few weeks ago, after hearing oral argument on this motion based on jack smith's allegedly unlawful appointment and appropriations of money to fund his office, she ordered an evidentiary hearing on another issue. that led people to believe that, if she was going to have a days long hearing seeking evidence on some other issue relative to the case, that she was not going to dismiss the case outright based on the appointments clause and appropriations clause arguments. yet, the length of this opinion suggests that this has been in the works for some time. what everyone thinks about judge cannon, a 93-page opinion citing case law and briefs and constitutional texts does not emerge overnight. this is a serious piece of work involving the judge and likely her law clerk's assistance, but it's not something that one spends two weeks writing. it's something that someone

spends usually several weeks writing. the other thing that really strikes me about this is just, i want to underscore how much conduct was left untouched by even the most generous presidential i'm community argument that could have been applied to this case and indeed was applied in this case. unlike in the d.c. case where no one made the appointments clause argument, in the florida case donald trump's lawyers both made motions to dismiss based on presidential immunity and on this argument. judge cannon has never held a hearing on the presidential immunity argument. in fact, several days ago she asked for supplemental briefing on the president immunity argument in the wake of the supreme court's opinion that was due for jack smith and his team this coming thursday. as vaughn was just talking about with you, there are -- even if you think donald trump's charges on classified documents emanate

from his time in the white house, that is, that they were lawfully his and that by taking them with him to mar-a-lago, that somehow stems and is rooted in official conduct, there were other charges here including obstruction of justice based on conversations, for example, that trump had with his then lawyer evan corcoran. vaughn was referring to them a few minutes ago. that never could have been rooted in official acts or official conduct. that evidence would have come in -- more importantly, any indictment predicated on that conduct would have been fair game because donald trump was then, while a former president, a private citizen at the time of that conduct. judge cannon had to have had a realization that as robust as the court's decision was on presidential immunity, it would not have salvaged the case for donald trump fully and out right. it would not have eliminated all the charges.

this, on the other hand, was a clean sweep. it allowed her to dismiss all the charges. the timing in that it comes after justice thomas's concurrence is also instructive. yet another victory for team trump legally. this has been almost unprecedented for them. since july 2nd, as i managed earlier, not only did they get the supreme court's decision, but they're now having additional briefing in front of the manhattan criminal court where there will not be a sentence. there was not a sentence on july 11th. we won't see one if at all until september 18th. and now this, the full dismissal of all 30-plus counts against donald trump in this case in florida. >> so, lisa, help me understand this. so the judge very clearly is not ruling on issues that you just mentioned, all those other issues. she's in her order finalizing and terminating everything. she says this order is confined

to this proceeding. the court decides no other legal rights or claims. and yet in practice, it does. >> that's correct. it decides them in the sense that she won't be deciding them. but, as i mentioned earlier, the beauty of this argument for trump's allies was always that en routing a dismissal based on jack smith's unlawful appointment, if he never had the right to be there in the first place and to indictment donald trump, they could knock out each and every one of the charges against him irrespective of whether any of their other armths succeed. they had many. they had the presidential immunity argument. they argued he was a victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. they argued the search warrant wasn't properly predicated in that it contained misleading statements from the judge in florida named bruce reinhart. so on and so forth. so there were a number of other

arguments here, some of which might have been able to fully dispose of the case, but none as cleanly and neatly as this one, jose. >> joining us now is andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and new york university law professor. andrew, what are your thoughts? >> it's important to focus on exactly what judge cannon did here. the judge said the appointment of a special counsel under the appointment clause of the constitution as well as the appropriations clause, which is funding to both the appointment clause appointing him and the appointment clause of the constitution funding him. under both those constitutional provisions, she said that the executive branch does not have that power. she's restricting the power of the executive branch of

government that is the president, the attorney general from appointing a special counsel saying that's something that would have to be done by congressional statute, or the president himself would have had to appoint this person, not merrick garland. that's her ruling here. it is in distinct contrast to all of the other cases that have dealt with this. i'm sure a lot of viewers are going, but what are you talking about? special counsel mueller was a special counsel and that was upheld. special counsel rob her who investigated the current sitting president, joe biden, he was able to do that. there is a current special counsel who has prosecuted hunter biden and is still prosecuting hunter biden. there was a recently concluded gun case brought by special counsel appointed in the same way that judge cannon has just

found is unconstitutional. so all of those other judges where there's been this challenge have rejected the view of judge cannon. she stands alone. what she's doing in many ways is putting in writing what she has done de facto in this case. she's delayed this case at every step. the one difference now is that by making this ruling in writing, not just sort of slowing the case to a complete standstill, which has been her want, this will go to the 11th circuit. the government can appeal this because every other case they have won. i actually litigated this issue when i was part of special counsel mueller's investigation, and the courts i think quite correctly rejected what judge cannon did and said that the attorney general has ample authority to appoint a special

counsel as an inferior officer. this, though, is the kind of issue i think will go to the 11th circuit and i think it might go to the supreme court. final point is that i think that for cynical viewers, they can put this decision by judge cannon alongside the supreme court's immunity decision from two weeks ago to really think about the problem with rule of law in this country. >> andrew, let me ask you, and i'm so grateful that you're able to explain it so that all of us can understand. so the judge has a problem with both the appointment and the funding of special counsels in general. and then even though she says, but this is not inconsistent with historical practice, she says that, and so -- then you talk about those other special

counsels, her and mueller and the one in hunter biden's case r. the mechanics of the appointment and the understanding of those special counsels any different than the mechanics and the appointment of this special counsel? >> not in any material way. if the special counsel here is unconstitutional, then that should apply as well to david wise, the special counsel in the hunter biden case. to be clear, that case is ongoing. the gun case that was -- that were the trial phase was concluded, that is still going on because there has not been a sentencing, and there is an upcoming tax case in california. so that issue of whether the special counsel can be appointed is a live one not just here in the jack smith florida case, but also in the hunter biden case.

it's virtually identical. so when judge cannon says i'm not doing this to apply to any other case, of course she's right. she doesn't have authority to rule in any other case, but her reasoning, if adopted by the supreme court, would undermine all special counsels, and that includes david wise. >> andrew, we wait for the probable appeal, right? what repercussions or could there be any repercussions from cannon's case decision in any other cases that we're following? >> it would only be in connection with cases where there is a special counsel that's been appointed. so it doesn't have any effect, for instance, in the new york case that. is a state case. there's no special counsel there. the georgia case against donald

trump, that's not a special counsel case. but this is the kind of decision that would affect the d.c. case. remember, d.c. is where jack smith has the january 6th insurrection case. the d.c. court of ap peoples has rejected judge cannon's decision. they do not believe there's a problem with the way in which the special counsel was appointed. that's what they held in the mueller investigation. they said there was ample authority. just to give you a quick sense of the reasoning because i think it's one where you don't really need to be a lawyer to understand the reasoning. i can give you the reasoning of dabney friedrich. she's a district judge that ruled on this in d.c. she was appointed notably by donald trump. so she is a trump appointee, and

she held there was no problem at all with the attorney general appointing a special counsel, in that case special counsel mueller. her reasoning was that the attorney general can follow any sort of internal guidance he wants in running the department of justice. he can appoint all sorts of people to help him. he can hire people. he has all sorts of underlings that are at his beck and call. he can follow the special counsel rules. he can decide to get rid of the special counsel roles. these are all people that report to him. there's no problem in the attorney general hiring all sorts of people beneath him to carry out the work of the department of justice. she said that's true of special counsel mueller, it would be true of special counsel jack smith. that's the reasoning in d.c. it was rejected by judge cannon. so there's now conflict between the d.c. cases and judge cannon.

i think this is going to be one where it's to be continued. in terms of the big picture, the florida case which was on hold de facto is now on hold in writing. >> de facto, du jourry, with some appeal probably. i want to bring in nbc news correspondent garrett haake at the rnc. garrett, any reaction there? >> reporter: jose, weave just gotten our reaction from the former president himself in a post on his social media site. he writes, as we move forward, this dismissal of the lauls indictment in florida should be just the first step followed by -- let me let this pick up here, they're testing the audio. i'll spich microphones. this should be the first step followed quickly by the dismissal of all the witch hunts, the january 6th hoeshgs in washington, new york a.g. scam, fake claims about a woman

i never met. he goes on to say towards the end of this statement here which is quite lengthy, these are all election interference conspiracy theories. let us come together and end all weaponization of our justice department and make america great again. first of all, the former president and his allies very much celebrating this ruling today. second, i think about everything we've heard from the former president in his campaign over the last 36 hours or so about his desire to try to unite the country moving forward. what i hear here is much the same tone we've become used to from the former president, talking about criminal cases against him, one of which has already resulted in a conviction by a jury of his peers as hoaxes and witch hunts, suggesting they're all brought against him by joe biden. this is much the same tone we've heard from donald trump sort of pre his new push towards unifying the country and now post. so we're seeing the same donald trump celebrating this move

today and pushing it one step further, suggesting all of the charges, criminal and civil against him, need to be dismissed. >> garrett haake, thank you very much. i want top go to barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney, a law professor at the university of michigan, also an msnbc legal analyst. barbara, just on andrew's point of what this is, de facto what it means and now that it's in writing and is part of a legal ruling, what it's going to mean and the repercussions it could possibly have going forward. >> i think it's a terrible decision and ashs wrong on its merits. going forward, i think this could actually be a blessing in disguise. it gives jack smith an opportunity to appeal the case immediately. so many of these other decisions were within the judge's discretion as she was slow walking the case. this is one immediately appealable and i think she's so

clearly wrong on the law, that the 11th circuit will reverse. donald trump probably goes to the supreme court and we have to wait for a decision there. even if ultimately the supreme court rules in favor of donald trump, the case is not over. all that means is a special counsel can't bring this case. there is nothing then to stop the u.s. attorney in the southern district of florida from bringing this case. certainly it means lengthy delay. there will be no trial before the election. i think we were headed in that direction anyway. by making this decision, now jack smith sees the leland scape and can act strategically the way he wants to. he could even decide, the justice department, to take this out of the special counsel's hands and go directly to the southern district of florida, refile the case immediately and get back on track, perhaps with a different judge. >> barbara, what would immediately look like? >> go to a grand jury, re-present the case in front of

a grand jury. i don't think immediately it means the case gets refiled tomorrow. you would have to present the case to a new grand jury. when you're republishing, it doesn't require you to bring in new witnesses. it just requires a summary witness to testify about what all of those witnesses said. so i think the case could get reindicted within a couple of weeks if they decided to go that route. immediate appeal. that means today the appeal could be filed, a notice of appeal cube filed today. >> so what if that appeals court decides against what judge cannon has decided? would that automatically reinstate it? >> well, it would. however, donald trump would have the opportunity to then appeal the 11th circuit's decision to the u.s. supreme court. the u.s. supreme court could decide to take up the case next term, or it could allow the case to pass without accepting it. i think in the meantime that process would mean no trial

before the election in any event. >> andrew weissmann, your final thoughts in this part of our program and our conversation. >> i think it's really important what barb said, to think about what are the next steps. because this is not a decision on the merits. it's about the procedure that was used. and while i think that the bulk of the law, the balance of the law is squarely against judge cannon, this is something that the 11th circuit or the supreme court can remedy. and it is also an opportunity for the 11th circuit to remove judge cannon if they think that this is a particularly frivolous ground, something that -- a decision that had been rejected by three-d c. and eastern district of virginia courts. it also is the opportunity potentially for jack smith to

think about a different venue for bringing these charges to -- many people are being critical of him. i was not one. i think he played it straight and brought the charges where the actual facts were. there are many, many options he has now. the biggest downside which is delay was one that was already in the case because it was in front of judge cannon. in many ways, this is an upside. >> barbara was talking about a blessing in disguise through the doj. a change of venue, in essence, is easy to do for the feds? >> it depends. it's usual that you can bring a a case -- under the constitution you have to bring a case where the crimes occurred. however, crimes occurred in multiple jurisdictions. some people critical of jack

smith have said, you could have brought this case, many of the charges in d.c. by bringing it in florida you increased the chances of judge cannon getting this case. remember she had been reversed stwies by the 11th circuit by the time of the indictment. they could present this case through a special counsel in d.c. or in -- just through the u.s. attorney's office not using a special counsel in d.c. or any other jurisdiction where -- where it would be constitutional valid, whether it's d.c., whether it's new jersey. the one thing is that jack smith has a number of options here to reverse judge cannon and potentially bring the case elsewhere or to get her removed from the case given her decisions. this just being the latest in many decisions that i think a

lot of legal commentators including myself think are quite questionable. >> so questionable decisions by judge cannon, and i'm thinking, barbara, to your issue of blessing in disguise possibly for the doj. is judge cannon, if she is reversed here by the 11th circuit, would that -- could that have negative repercussions on her specifically? >> well, it could. i think jack smith would have to consider whether to ask that the case be reassigned to a new judge based on the fact that this judge has demonstrated bias against the government. it's a very rare thing that the government asks for it. i know there have been times when i as u.s. attorney considered asking for it and refrained from doing so only because we thought that the consequences of being back in that judge's courtroom might be even worse. but sometimes we have seen the court of appeals on its own decide to reassign a case. i think in this case, in light

of not only the decisions in this case, but also in the prior civil case in which judge cannon appointed a special master in the search warrant matter, all that cumulative effect i think would be enough for jack smith to point to the biases of the judge and ask that the case be reassigned on remand to a different judge. >> andrew weissmann and barbara mcquade, thank you very much for being with us. i want to bring in catherine christian, an msnbc legal analyst, former manhattan district attorney. so just wondering if you think that what this judge decided in florida is going to have any direct repercussions on what's going in new york? >> no, but let me just say this, donald trump is the luckiest criminal defendant alive because four indictments, one, the one in manhattan he was convicted by a jury but now there's a motion to set aside the verdict based

on the supreme court decision, which it would be defensible if judge merchan did that. it'd also be defensible if he did not set aside the verdict. he had most of the january 6th indictment -- not most of it, a chunk of it, all of the allegations of what he did with doj are immune, so that can't come out if there ever is a trial. the fulton county, georgia, case, a piece is on appeal. the piece involving a relationship between the d.a. and a member of the staff, so that's not going to be tried anytime soon, and now his classified documents case has been dismissed so i'm going to be optimistic like barb mcquaid and say it's a blessing in disguise. i always try to look at the glass being half full as opposed to half empty, but the reality is there will be no other cases tried this year. if donald trump is reelected as president both of the federal cases i'm pretty certain will disappear.

so if he's not, you know, then we'll have to wait because this case will be appealed to the 11th circuit, and then if donald trump loses in the 11th circuit, it will be appealed to the united states supreme court. that will take a very, very long time. it will not have an effect on the manhattan case because it has nothing to do with the special counsel, but that case is already, you know, on a little shaky ground, though i think it's defensible for judge merchan to not set aside the verdict, but it could be equally defensible for him to set aside the verdict. it has nothing to do with the judge cannon's decision. >> both -- it should not have any direct impact on, as you say the new york case, because it's a state case or the georgia case. yet, these things do have a tendency to permeate throughout the whole legal process? >> exactly. the four cases are distinct

cases but they're, you know, obviously they're connected because it involves the same defendant, and the fulton county case obviously involves the same issues as the january 6th case, you know, the issues involving, you know, election interference and, you know, trying to fake elector scheme and trying to overturn the election. but it's -- like i said, he's a very, very lucky criminal defendant, donald trump. this does not happen for regular people who have four indictments. >> yeah, and catherine, just talk to us, if you would, about something, an area you know very well, i'm talking about juan merchan's courtroom. what is it that july 11th, that decision by the judge merchan in that case, what is it that that process has to do with what we're seeing in florida and does it have anything to do with what judge cannon decided today? >> judge merchan, what he has to

decide has nothing to do with the florida case, it has to do with the supreme court's decision on presidential immunity because there were, according to the defense -- and it is true, there were a number of testimony and documents that were presented to the jury that were created and conversations that happened when donald trump was president. now, obviously the prosecutors are going to argue it was all an official conduct, it was private conduct, it was not an official act. the defense is arguing they were all official acts and under the supreme court decision, you cannot bring official acts into a trial. the jury he's immune for them, and those he's presumptively immune for, they cannot come into evidence. therefore, according to the defense, you have to set aside this verdict. does it mean the case can't be retried, setting aside a verdict means that the d.a.'s office has to retry it without any official conduct evidence.

if it happens, that trial will not take place before election day. if the judge decides, no, you're wrong, the defense i'm not setting aside this verdict, donald trump will appeal it, and that appeal process will take a while because it will go to what's called the appellate division and the new york state court of appeals. that will happen after the election no matter what happens on election day. >> garrett haake, any more reaction from what catherine christian calls the luckiest defendant on the earth? >> only that truth social post from donald trump are himself. we know he spoke to a journalist at another network and basically praised the judge for what he said was having the courage to make this ruling and the wisdom to make this ruling, and he related it to the concurring opinion in the immunity decision by justice thomas, which i think i've heard some of your other guests talking about, which essentially laid out a road map of coming to this legal conclusion about the need to dismiss this case. as you showed the truth social

post, i'll point out what we're seeing here is so much of the same language and same tenor from donald trump when it comes to describing these legal cases. in the aftermath of saturday's events, he's talked about a more unifying tone. here you see him describing hoaxing, witch hunts and conspiracy by his political opponent joe biden. we'll see, jose, how much, if at all, the content of this decision makes its way into the convention programming here today, but certainly i think you're going to see a much more celebratory mood on the ground here in milwaukee, when you consider how far the fortunes of this candidate, this party have changed over the last few days, republicans are going to feel like they have a lot to celebrate when things get underway in a few short hours. >> catherine, just again reaffirming what judge cannon wrote in her order terminating the whole entire case, she writes, this order is confined to this proceeding. the court decides no other legal rights or claims, obviously the court can't do that, but this

order shall not affect or weaken any of the protections for classified information impose instead this case or any protective orders pertaining to classified information. is it limiting to this case or not? >> it's to this case because she made some decisions regarding classified documents. those still stand. so -- but she's basically saying, don't worry, government, i'm not going to say the defense can release all of this information. but the case for now is closed. it will certainly be appealed -- i can't imagine it won't be -- by the special counsel to the 11th circuit, and we'll have an appellate decision. >> i want to bring in katie phang, host of "the katie phang show" here on msnbc. a surprise for many. how was it for you? >> not totally a surprise, jose. very quickly, as you know, a few weeks ago i was in fort pierce

for the oral arguments on this issue. the thing we need to emphasize. we talk about how delay is the name of the game for donald trump. in this instance, judge cannon unreasonably delayed ruling on this motion, meaning she could have addressed this motion months ago. something like the idea that the prosecutor in this case jack smith is not supposed to be on this case, don't you think this should have been decided months ago before all of the work that has been done has been done, and that is exactly why it is unreasonable that we've been waiting for judge cannon to be able to get on the ball to make these critical decisions. as you've heard from other astute and credible analysis so far. it is a decision that can be appealed at this point, must be appealed and the law is against judge cannon. but delay being the name of the game for the defendant in this case, donald trump, it will not be decided before november, so everybody has to keep this in mind. we likely will not get a decision on this appeal before november. >> so katie phang, we've been looking through these 93 pages

of the decision in which she says indeed this is based on case law. are there differing opinions on this? or is this just her reaching out for some rare and unusual way to determine that this should be dropped? >> the lifeline is there, and it's been given to her by justice clarence thomas, as i will remind -- everybody who's heard this already, justice thomas in the concurrence to the immunity decision actually provided for her to be able to make this decision. i've noted it on my show and on other shows. we've been waiting to see if she would actually accept this lifeline for biden, by clarence thomas in his concurrence. i will also remind everybody, this issue was not briefed by either donald trump or special counsel. this issue was not teed up to scotus. so thomas took it upon himself to be able to provide this road map to aileen cannon to be able to make this decision. because of that, i think everybody had to keep in mind

that this is kind of questionable why the timing is, what it is, it's a 93-page decision, jose. she didn't write this last night. so this has definitely been in the hopper for a while. >> catherine christian, katie phang, thank you so very much for being with us this morning. that is it for me. i'm josé diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell continues our breaking news coverage next. good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington with special coverage of the assassination attempt against former president donald trump and the breaking news just this morning that judge aileen cannon in florida has dismissed the mar-a-lago classified documents case, and she says it is based on her opinion that the appointment of special counsel jack smith itself was, quote, unlawful siding with the defense. her decision will likely be appealed to the 11th circuit. if it