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 concerns about the unprecedented nature of the law enforcement action, indicating that the ruling was necessary to promote a perception of fairness.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Trump's position as a former president meant the seizure of documents carried a stigma "in a league of its own" and that any future indictment "would result in reputational harm."
Cannon, who also called for a temporary halt to the federal inquiry until a document review is completed, asked Trump's team and the government to submit potential candidates for the special master role by Sept. 9.
Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
The decision raised several issues for the investigation into potential violations of the Espionage Act or obstruction of justice:
- Although Cannon's decision came nearly a month after the Aug. 8 search, she voiced concern about maintaining a "perception of fairness."
- Cannon ruled that Trump's position as a former president meant the seizure of documents carried a stigma and that any indictment "would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude."
- Cannon's concern echoed Russia special counsel Robert Mueller's reasoning in refusing to decide whether to charge Trump with obstruction of justice in that investigation because he wouldn't have had a forum to defend himself.
- National security lawyers said defense lawyers would be "salivating" over the decision because it favored defendants.
- Will the Justice Department appeal? A department spokesman said the government is reviewing the decision.