let's dance'' tour 2022 profis

• Die Abendzeitung
• Autoren und Autorinnen

Push-Service abonnieren

Bitte wählen Sie die Push-Services aus, für welche Sie Benachrichtigungen erhalten möchten.

Bitte wählen Sie wegen einer technischen Umstellung die Push-Services erneut aus, für welche Sie Benachrichtigungen erhalten möchten.

• Meine Themen
• Eilmeldungen
• FC Bayern München
• FC Bayern München - Toralarm
• TSV 1860 München
• TSV 1860 München - Toralarm

Benachrichtigungs-Service

Ich will jeder jederzeit top-informiert sein und die neuesten Nachrichten per Push-Meldung über den Browser erhalten.

Benachrichtigungen blockiert

Um Benachrichtigungen zu empfangen, ändern Sie den Benachrichtungsstatus in Ihrem Browser

"Let's Dance": Diese 14 Profitänzer sind 2022 dabei

Unter anderem Ekaterina Leonova und Massimo Sinató tanzen in der neuen "Let's Dance"-Staffel mit.

Fans von " Let's Dance " können sich auf ein Wiedersehen mit einigen ihrer Lieblingstänzer freuen, wenn die neue Staffel im Februar bei RTL startet. Nachdem der Sender zuvor bereits die Promikandidatinnen und -kandidaten angekündigt hat, steht jetzt auch fest, welche Profis mittanzen werden .

Die Profitänzer der 15. Staffel von "Let's Dance"

Dabei sind viele beliebte Tanzprofis und ein neues Gesicht. Isabel Edvardsson (39), Ekaterina Leonova (34) und Massimo Sinató (41) werden nach einer Pause auf das TV-Parkett zurückkehren. Auch Christina Luft (31), Kathrin Menzinger (33), Valentin (34) und Renata Lusin (34), Christian Polanc (43), Andrzej Cibis (34), Evgeny Vinokurov (31) und Vadim Garbuzov (34) sind dabei. Während Malika Dzumaev (30) erneut auftritt, ist ihr Tanz- und Lebenspartner Zsolt Sándor Cseke (33), der bereits auf der "Let's Dance"-Tour zu sehen war, erstmals in dem TV-Format zu sehen. Zudem gibt es eine besondere Überraschung: Auch Patricija Ionel (26), die gerade erst Mutter eines Jungen geworden ist, soll mit einem Promi das Tanzbein schwingen.

Wenn am 18. Februar ab 20.15 Uhr die neue Staffel wie gewohnt mit einer Kennenlernshow bei RTL und RTL+ eröffnet wird, werden den 14 Tänzern ebenso viele Promis gegenüberstehen. Um den Titel "Dancing Star 2022" werden Sängerin Michelle (49), Autorin Caroline Bosbach (32), die Moderatoren und Moderatorinnen Janin Ullmann (40), Riccardo Basile (30) sowie Amira Pocher (29) und Sänger Mike Singer (21) kämpfen. Weitere Konkurrenz bekommen sie von den Schauspielern Hardy Krüger jr. (53) und Timur Ülker (32), deren Kollegin Sarah Mangione (31), Leichtathletik-Star Mathias Mester (35), Comedian Bastian Bielendorfer (37), "Ninja Warrior Germany"-Gewinner René Casselly (25), Lilly zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (49) und Model Cheyenne Ochsenknecht (21).

Hinweis: Diese Meldung ist Teil eines automatisierten Angebots der nach strengen journalistischen Regeln arbeitenden Agentur spot on news. Sie wird von der AZ-Onlineredaktion nicht bearbeitet oder geprüft. Fragen und Hinweise bitte an [email protected]

• Let's Dance
• Neueste zuerst
• Älteste zuerst
• Höchstbewertet zuerst

Sie haben den Inhalt der Merkliste hinzugefügt.

Sie müssen sich anmelden um diese Funktionalität nutzen zu können. zum Login

Das Tanzfieber packt Deutschlands Arenen

Die "let's dance"-profis sind schon voll on fire erste bilder von den proben für die live-tour 2022.

Ab dem 31. Oktober 2022 geht's endlich los mit der großen „Let's Dance“-Tour – und die Profis sind schon voll on fire! Zwölf bis vierzehn Stunden pro Tag tanzen sich Vadim Garbuzov , Kathrin Menzinger und Co. die Füße wund, damit in Deutschlands größten Arenen auch wirklich jeder Move sitzt. RTL-Moderatorin Steffi Brungs war bei den Proben dabei und hat uns im Video die schönsten Bilder mitgebracht. Das macht definitiv Lust auf mehr!

Sie wollen live dabei sein? *

Auch "Team Sexrakete" ist Teil der "Let's Dance"-Live-Tour 2022

Doch natürlich sind bei der großen „Let’s Dance“-Live-Tour nicht nur Profis am Start. Auch einige Promis der vergangenen Staffel sind dabei, wenn das Tanzfieber die Arenen packt. Unter anderem mit dabei: Comedian Bastian Bielendorfer, dessen Performances auf dem „Let’s Dance“-Parkett schon jetzt unvergessen sind. Aber was sagt eigentlich der andere Teil von „Team Sexrakete“ zu Bastis aktuellem Fitnesslevel? Wird er die Chroeos der Live-Tour rocken? Das verrät Ekaterina Leonova uns ebenfalls oben im Video.

Alle Infos zur großen „Let’s Dance“-Tour haben wir HIER übrigens auch noch mal ausführlich zusammengefasst.

Alle Termine der "Let's Dance"-Tour 2022 im Überblick

Empfehlungen unserer partner, "let's dance" jederzeit auf rtl+ streamen.

„Let’s Dance“ läuft aktuell zwar nicht im Fernsehen, aber das ist kein Grund, auf die RTL-Tanzshow zu verzichten! Auf RTL+ stehen nämlich jederzeit vergangene Staffeln von „Let’s Dance“ zum Streamen bereit. Einfach mal vorbeischauen und mittanzen! (ngu)

*Wir arbeiten in diesem Beitrag mit Affiliate-Links. Wenn Sie über diese Links ein Produkt kaufen, erhalten wir vom Anbieter eine Provision. Für Sie entstehen dabei keine Mehrkosten. Wo und wann Sie ein Produkt kaufen, bleibt natürlich Ihnen überlassen.

Jorge González

Let's dance 2021, motsi mabuse, let's dance 2022, joachim llambi, mehr zum thema.

Evgeny Vinokurov „Let’s Dance”-Star zeigt seine süßen Kids - und Haltung!

Da traut Joachim Llambi seinen Augen kaum Renata Lusin und Lorenz Büffel ringen Andrea Kiewel zu Boden

Alexandru und Patricija Ionel Erste Details zur Schwangerschaft

Produktvergleiche, angebote und services, produktvergleiche.

Heißluftfritteuse Test

Matratzen Test

Topper Test

Hundetrockenfutter Test

Kochmesser Test

Laufband Test

Blutdruckmessgeräte Test

Elektro Scooter Test

Gesichtscreme Test

Multivitamin Test

Wayfair Gutscheine

Wish Gutscheine

Baur Gutscheine

ManoMano Gutscheine

Höffner Gutscheine

Kreditkarte ohne Schufa

Kostenlose Kreditkarte

Prepaid Kreditkarten

Virtuelle Kreditkarten

Firmenkreditkarte

RTL Partnersuche

RTL Kreditkarten Vergleich

RTL Jobbörse

RTL Prospekte

RTL Brandstore

RTL Wechselservice

RTL Nebenkostencheck

Tierversicherung

Sprachen Lernen

Lieferservice

Partnersuche in Berlin

Partnersuche in Hamburg

Partnersuche in München

• Verbraucher

„Let‘s Dance“ 2022: Das sind die Profitänzer der 15. Staffel - drei Publikumslieblinge endlich wieder dabei

Stand: 25.02.2022, 21:01 Uhr

Von: Linda Rosenberger

In der 15. Staffel „Let‘s Dance“ werden die Profitänzer ihren Promis wieder das Tanzen lernen. Dabei darf man sich auf einige lang vermisste Gesichter freuen.

Köln - Sie lassen einen träumen, während sie selbst über das Parkett schweben: Die „Let‘s Dance“-Profis verstehen sich bestens auf ihr Hand- beziehungsweise Fußwerk, wenn sie sich die Tanzschuhe überstreifen. Jedes Jahr geben sie ihr Können mit allzu großer Passion dabei an ihre prominenten Schüler , die sie in dem RTL-Tanzwettbewerb an die Seite gestellt bekommen weiter - und werden dabei selbst zum Star. So gelten einige von ihnen mittlerweile als wahre Publikumslieblinge, ohne die die TV-Show gar nicht mehr vorstellbar wäre. Umso erfreulicher ist es da sicherlich für alle Fans, dass es in der 15. Staffel des Fernsehformats endlich auch wieder ein Wiedersehen mit bereits vermissten Gesichtern geben wird. Nachdem RTL den heutigen Cast der „Let‘s Dance“-Profis unlängst offiziell bekannt gegeben hat, haben wir hier alle Tänzer für Sie im Überblick, die 2022 mit ihren zugeteilten berühmten Partnern um den Titel antreten werden.

„Let‘s Dance“ 2022: Diese Profis sind in der 15. Staffel dabei

Drei Comebacks und eine Premiere - das verspricht die Liste der diesjährigen „Let‘s Dance“-Profis. Hier haben wir bereits einen ersten Überblick, auf wen sie sich dieses Jahr im Rahmen der 15. Staffel der RTL-Show freuen dürfen.

• Andrzej Cibis Christian Polanc Christina Luft Ekaterina Leonova Evgeny Vinokurov Isabel Edvardsson Kathrin Menzinger Malika Dzumaev Massimo Sinató Patricija Ionel Renata Lusin Vadim Garbuzov Valentin Lusin Zsolt Sándor Cseke

Drei Comebacks und ein Newcomer unter den diesjährigen „Let‘s Dance“-Profis

Wirft man als treuer „Let‘s Dance“-Fan einen Blick auf den heurigen Profi-Cast, lässt der einem bestimmt schnell das Herz höher schlagen, denn die drei „alten Hasen“ und über die Jahre liebgewonnenen Tanzstars Massimo Sinató, Isabel Edvardsson und Ekaterina Leonova sind 2022 endlich wieder in der RTL-Show dabei.

Auffallen dürfte einem außerdem der Name Zsolt Sándor Cseke, denn der gebürtige Rumäne feiert in diesem Jahr sein großes „Let‘s Dance“-Debüt. Zuvor war er aber im Rahmen des Tanzwettbewerbs bereits in Erscheinung getreten, denn der 33-Jährige war 2021 schon Teil des Ensembles der zu der Fernsehsendung dazugehörigen Live-Tour! Seit 2015 ist er außerdem an der Seite von Profitänzerin Malika Dzumaev, ihrerseits ebenfalls Teil der „Let‘s Dance“-Familie, zu sehen. In seiner Karriere hat Zsolt bereits diverse Titel gewonnen und arbeitet erfolgreich als Trainer und Wertungsrichter. Ob ihn die neue Herausforderung in der Tanzshow aber vielleicht nervös macht?

Isabel Edvardson, Massimo Sinato und Ekaterina Leonova sind in der 15. Staffel „Let‘s Dance“ wieder dabei

Eine, die im Interview zugibt, vor ihrem großen „Let‘s Dance“-Comeback tatsächlich nervös zu sein, ist Ekaterina Leonova. Nach zweijähriger Pause ist die zur Freude vieler nun endlich wieder auf dem RTL-Parkett zu sehen. „Meine Freude kann man nicht beschreiben“, fiebert Ekat ihrer Rückkehr in die TV-Show bereits entgegen.

Ähnliches dürfte auch für Isabel Edvardsson gelten, denn für die gebürtige Schwedin fühlt sich ihre heurige „Let‘s Dance“-Teilnahme an, wie ein „nach Hause kommen“. Schließlich ist die frischgebackene Mama bereits seit der ersten Staffel Teil der RTL-Show. Nun kehrt sie nach ihrer Babypause im vergangenen Jahr in das Erfolgsformat zurück - genauso wie ihr Kollege Massimo Sinato .

„Ich habe das Parkett schon vermisst“, gesteht auch der Halbitaliener, nachdem er nach der Geburt seines Kindes ebenfalls eine Runde in der RTL-Show ausgesetzt hat. Die Entscheidung, sich eine Auszeit für seine Familie genommen zu haben, bereut der frisch gebackene Papa aber trotzdem nicht - immerhin wachse der Nachwuchs ja auch so schnell.

„Let‘s Dance“ 2022: Welches Promi-Profi-Gespann wird „Dancing Star“?

Um trotz ihres „Let‘s Dance“-Comebacks nicht auf Zeit mit ihren Liebsten verzichten zu müssen, planen sowohl Isabel als auch Massimo, sich von ihrer Familie zu der RTL-Show begleiten zu lassen. Da werden hinter den Kameras bestimmt dann große und auch kleinere Däumchen gedrückt.

Für wen sich das letztlich tatsächlich lohnt und welcher Profi mit seinem Promi den Titel „Let‘s Dance“-Gewinner ertanzen kann, das können alle Fans ab dem 18. Februar 2022 mitverfolgen, wenn die neue Staffel „Let‘s Dance“ in die 15. Runde startet. (lros)

Auch interessant

• Meine Merkliste
• Meine Daten
• Nachrichten

RTL-Tanzshow „Let's Dance“ 2022: Diese Profitänzer bringen den Promis den richtigen Hüftschwung bei

Drei Comebacks und eine Premiere – das verspricht die Liste der diesjährigen Profitänzer bei „Let's Dance“. Auf diese Tanz-Stars dürfen sich RTL-Zuschauer in der 15. Staffel freuen.

„Let's Dance“ 2022: Diese Profitänzer treten in der 15. Staffel an 

In der 15. Staffel der Tanzshow „Let's Dance“ gibt es gleich drei heiß ersehnte Wiedersehen mit Profis, die nach einer Pause wieder aufs RTL-Parkett zurückkehren. Massimo Sinató, Isabel Edvardsson und Ekaterina Leonova sind 2022 wieder dabei. Alle Profitänzer im Überblick:

1. Isabel Edvardsson : Die 39-Jährige ist seit der ersten Staffel Teil des Tanz-Ensembles, in den vergangenen elf Jahren setzte sie nur drei Mal aus – 2010 war sie als Jurorin dabei, 2019 wegen ihrer ersten Schwangerschaft und 2021 auf Grund ihrer zweiten Schwangerschaft.  Pünktlich zur großen Jubiläumsstaffel kehrt Edvardsson zu ihrer "Let's Dance"-Familie zurück.

Die Profitänzerin Isabel Edvardsson wurde im schwedischen Göteborg geboren und tanzt seit ihrem 13. Lebensjahr. Parallel zu einer Ausbildung in Contemporary Dance, Ballett und Jazzdance, fing sie mit Standard- und Lateinturniertanz an.

Mit 21 Jahren ist sie nach Deutschland gezogen, um mit ihrem Tanz- und Ehepartner Marcus Weiß als Professional zu tanzen und spezialisierte sich dabei auf Standardtanz. Mit dem Sieg der Europameisterschaft Ende 2007 beendeten Marcus Weiß und Isabel Edvardsson ihre aktive Karriere als Tanzsportler und konzentrierten sich auf ihre drei Tanzstudios.

2. Ekaterina Leonova : Eine, die im Interview zugibt, vor ihrem großen „Let‘s Dance“-Comeback tatsächlich nervös zu sein, ist Ekaterina Leonova. Nach zweijähriger Pause ist sie zur Freude vieler nun endlich wieder auf dem RTL-Parkett zu sehen. „Meine Freude kann man nicht beschreiben“, fiebert Leonova ihrer Rückkehr in die TV-Show bereits entgegen.

Die gebürtige Russin tanzt seit ihrem zehnten Lebensjahr Standard und Latein. Nach dem Studium der Sozialpädagogik zog sie 2008 von Wolgograd nach Köln, um ihre Tanzkarriere fortzusetzen. Zudem schloss sie den Bachelor und Master in Betriebswirtschaftslehre ab. Seit 2013 gehört sie zum Cast bei „Let's Dance“.  

3. Massimo Sinató : Der Profitänzer wurde 1980 in Mannheim geboren. Seinen südländischen Namen und sein Aussehen hat er seinem italienischen Vater zu verdanken. Der 41-Jährige wurde insgesamt viermal in Folge Bayerischer Meister im Latein, war dreimal Finalist der Deutschen Meisterschaften, Belgischer Meister und siegte mehrfach bei nationalen Turnieren. Im Jahr 2016 war Massimo als Tanzcoach für die Kandidaten von "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" im Recall auf Jamaica tätig. Zudem war er Choreograph bei der 15. Staffel von "Germany´s next Topmodel." 

Massimo Sinató war 2010 zum ersten Mal Teil des Profitänzer-Ensembles von "Let´s Dance" und gewann direkt mit Sophia Thomalla den begehrten Pokal. In der fünften Staffel trat Sinató  mit Rebecca Mir an, mit welcher er den zweiten Platz belegte. Das Tanzpaar verliebte sich und heiratete 2015 auf Sizilien. 2021 besiegelten sie ihre Liebe mit der Geburt ihres ersten Sohnes. Um mehr Zeit mit seiner Familie zu verbringen, pausierte  Sinató  in der letzten "Let's Dance" Staffel.

4. Für Profi Patricija Ionel   hat sich seit ihrem „Let's Dance“-Debüt in Jahr 2021 einiges geändert: Die Tänzerin ist verheiratet, trägt nun den Nachnamen ihres Mannes Alexandru und seit kurzem sind die beiden überglückliche Eltern. 2022 startet für Ionel aber nicht nur mit dem Abenteuer Mamasein. Die 26-Jährige ist trotzdem als Profi bei "Let's Dance" dabei – denn sie fühlt sich top fit.

Patricija Ionel ist 26 Jahre alt, wuchs in Litauen auf und blickt auf eine erfolgreiche nationale und internationale Karriere als Hochleistungssportlerin zurück. Seit 2019 wohnt sie in ihrer Wahlheimat Deutschland und tanzt mit ihrem Tanzpartner und Ehemann Alexandru Ionel. Sie weist zahlreiche Meistertitel auf, war Finalteilnehmerin bei Weltmeisterschaften, sowie bei nationalen Meisterschaften in Italien und Deutschland. Im November 2021 hat sie, im 8. Monat schwanger, an der Weltmeisterschaft Showdance Professionals Standard teilgenommen und belegte den zweiten Platz. Die 25-Jährige tauchte in der 14. Staffel erstmalig in die TV-Tanzwelt ein.

5. Zsolt Sandór Cseke :  Auch ein neues Gesicht hat sich unter die Tanz-Profis gemischt. Wer bei der erfolgreichen „Let's Dance“-Tour im Jahr 2021 im Publikum gesessen ist, dürfte den „Neuen“ jedoch schon kennen. Der 33-Jährige war nämlich Teil des Tour-Ensembles. Auch seine Tanz-und Lebenspartnerin ist keine Unbekannte: Malika Dzumaev ist seit 2021 bei „Let's Dance“ dabei. Neben den Lusins gibt es in dieser Staffel also noch ein weiteres Paar, das gegeneinander antritt. 

Cseke  wurde in Salonta (Rumänien) geboren, besuchte dort das Liceum Salonta und absolvierte eine Trainerausbildung. Im Jahre 2015 fand er in Malika Dzumaev eine ideale Tanz- und Lebenspartnerin und zog zu ihr nach Bremen.

6. Malika Dzumaev  hat  mit Cseke unter anderem im Jahr 2018 den Nordeuropameister-Titel in den lateinamerikanischen Tänzen geholt. Zudem sind sie mehrfache Deutsche Meisterschaft- und Europacup-Finalisten. Aktuell ist das Tanzpaar Norddeutscher Meister der Sonderklasse Latein und gehört zurzeit zu den Top 4 in Deutschland. Malika und Zsolt besetzen international in der Weltrangliste Latein den 12. Platz.

Neben ihrer erfolgreichen Tanzkarriere schloss Dzumaev  im September 2020 ihren Bachelor in Public Health/ Gesundheitswissenschaften an der Universität Bremen ab. Zusätzlich hat die Tänzerin im Jahr 2021 eine A-Wertungsrichterlizenz absolviert.

Malika Dzumaev  nimmt zum zweiten Mal als Profitänzerin bei "Let´s Dance" teil.

7. Christian Polanc (43) ist ein wahres „ Let's Dance“ -Urgestein. Seit der zweiten Staffel bringt er den Promi-Ladys das Tanzen bei – und somit geht er 2022 schon in seine 14. Staffel.  Der Tänzer und Tanztrainer wurde im bayerischen Ingolstadt geboren. Nach dem Besuch eines Tanzkurses im Jahr 1995 begann er sich für den Tanzsport zu interessieren und konnte bereits 1997 mit dem dritten Platz der Deutschen Meisterschaft in Latein seinen ersten Erfolg feiern. 

Seit 2007 ist Polanc Teil des „Let's Dance“-Profitänzer-Ensembles und konnte sich bereits zwei Mal den Titelgewinn ertanzen. 2019 war er Teilnehmer der Sendung "Llambis Tanzduell" (RTL), in der er den Wettbewerb gegen Massimo Sinató in der hawaiianischen Hula für sich entscheiden konnte.

8. Christina Luft : In der Jubiläumsstaffel 2017 gab die 31-Jährige ihr Debüt als Profitänzerin bei „ Let's Dance“ und tanzte mit Musiker und TV-Moderator Giovanni Zarella.  2022 steht nun schon die fünfte Staffel für die 31-Jährige an.  „Let's Dance" hat auch schon für ihr privates Glück gesorgt: Mit ihrem ehemaligen Tanzpartner Luca Hänni ist die 31-Jährige mittlerweile sogar verlobt.

Luft wurde in Bischkek (Kirgisistan) geboren und zog mit ihrer Familie im Alter von einem Jahr nach Deutschland. Sie tanzt seit ihrem neunten Lebensjahr Standard und Latein. Neben ihrer Tanzkarriere schloss sie ein Studium in Psychologie ab.

9. Renata Lusin wurde 1987 in Kazan (Russland) geboren und tanzt seit ihrem zehnten Lebensjahr. Um ihre Tanzsportkarriere voranzutreiben, kam sie mit 16 Jahren nach Deutschland und verliebte sich auf Anhieb in ihren heutigen Ehemann und Tanzpartner Valentin Lusin. 

An der Seite von Ex-Fussballer Rúrik Gíslason landet sie bei ihrer 4. Teilnahme von „Let's Dance“ im Jahr 2021 auf dem ersten Platz. Und als wäre das nicht genug, setzt sie eine Woche nach dem Finale noch einen drauf: Gemeinsam mit Ehemann Valentin gewann die 34-Jährige die große Profi-Challenge.

10. Valentin Lusin  wurde 1987 in Sankt Petersburg (Russland) geboren. Seine Uroma stammte aus Deutschland, wohin seine Familie 1994 zurückkehrte. Im selben Jahr begann Lusin mit den Klavierspielen und parallel mit dem Tanzen. In beiden Disziplinen war er sehr erfolgreich.

Mit 14 Jahren entschied er, sich fortan nur auf das Tanzen zu konzentrieren und tanzt seit seinem 16. Lebensjahr erfolgreich mit seiner heutigen Ehefrau Renata Lusin. 2022 nimmt Lusin schon an seiner fünften Staffel „Let's Dance“ teil.

11: Vadim Garbuzov  schrieb 2021 gemeinsam mit Nicolas Puschmann „Let's Dance"-Geschichte. Die beiden bildeten das erste Männer-Tanzpaar in der Show – und waren unglaublich erfolgreich. Garbuzow führte den Ex-Prince-Charming bis ins Finale.

Vadim Garbuzov wurde in Kharkiv (Ukraine) geboren und wanderte 1994 mit seinen Eltern nach Vancouver (Kanada) aus. Ein Jahr später begann er mit dem Turniertanz. Er wurde mehrmaliger ukrainischer, kanadischer und österreichischer Junioren- und Jugendmeister. Von 2012 bis 2016 erstellte er  Choreographien für sechs Musicalproduktionen des Wiener Metropol Theaters. 

12. Andrzej Cibis :  In der „Let's Dance“-Jubiläumsstaffel 2017 trat er bereits als Profitänzer an der Seite von  AWZ-Star  Cheyenne  Pahde  auf. Im vergangenen Jahr schaffte es der 34-Jährige mit  Auma  Obama auf den fünften Platz. 

Andrzej  Cibi s wurde in  Byto m (Oberschlesien) in Polen geboren und zog mit seiner Familie im Alter von einem Jahr nach Deutschland. Mit neun Jahren besuchte Andrzej zum ersten Mal eine Tanzschule. Bereits seit 2008 tanzt der mehrfache Bayrische Landesmeister mit Ehefrau und Tanzpartnerin Victoria  Kleinfelder-Cibis akti v in der höchsten Lateinklasse und gründete 2012 gemeinsam mit ihr im schwäbischen Remseck am Neckar das Tanzstudio "Royal Dance".

  13.  Evgeny Vinokurov wurde im sibirischen Tjumen geboren und tanzt seit seinem sechsten Lebensjahr. Nach der Trennung von seiner damaligen Tanzpartnerin wurde er 2005 von Christina Luft, die ebenfalls auf der Suche nach einem neuen Tanzpartner war, kontaktiert. Nach einem gemeinsamen Probetraining in Braunschweig entschloss sich der damals 14-Jährige ohne seine Eltern zu ihr nach Deutschland zu ziehen und legte so den Grundstein für seine Tänzerkarriere. 

Aktuell ist Vinokurov  nebenberuflich als Freelancer im Consultingbereich für Banken tätig. Zudem führt er sein eigenes Unternehmen und hat eine Parfummarke.

14. Kathrin Menzinger :  Die Österreicherin  ist neben ihrer Teilnahme an „Let's Dance“ durch zahlreiche Erfolge bei Tanzwettbewerben bekannt. Im Showdance Latin ist sie mehrfache Weltmeisterin. Ihre erste Staffel „Let's Dance“ gewann sie 2015. 

2014 sicherte sich Menzinger gemeinsam mit Vadim Garbuzov den Vize-Weltmeistertitel im Showdance Standard, eine Goldmedaille bei der Europameisterschaft im Showdance Latein und den zweiten Vize-Weltmeistertitel in der Showdance Standard Sektion. Im darauffolgenden Jahr krönte das Tanzpaar ihre harte Arbeit mit zwei Weltmeisterschafstiteln in Showdance Latein und Standard – trotz Trennung in der privaten Beziehung.   

Ralf Schumacher „überwältigt von tollen Rückmeldungen“ Instagram-Post Ralf Schumacher „überwältigt von tollen Rückmeldungen“

Beklebt, beschädigt: Aufregung um „Swiftkirchen“-Schilder Taylor Swift in Gelsenkirchen Beklebt, beschädigt: Aufregung um „Swiftkirchen“-Schilder

Michael Wendler und Laura kündigen „zweites Glück“ an Leute Michael Wendler und Laura kündigen „zweites Glück“ an

Schauspieler James Sikking ist tot Film und Fernsehen Schauspieler James Sikking ist tot

Freundin Tori Spelling und Mutter trauern um Shannen Doherty Leute Freundin Tori Spelling und Mutter trauern um Shannen Doherty

Das steckt hinter der Euphorie um Taylor Swift The Eras Tour Das steckt hinter der Euphorie um Taylor Swift

Dieser günstige Ceranfeld-Reiniger beeindruckt die Test-Experten „Kochfeld glänzt wie neu“ Dieser günstige Ceranfeld-Reiniger beeindruckt die Test-Experten

Nur ein einziges Spülmittel erhält eine Traumnote im großen Test Stiftung Warentest Nur ein einziges Spülmittel erhält eine Traumnote im großen Test

„Let’s Dance“ 2022: Ex-Kandidatin Oana Nechiti rechnet mit Produzenten der Show ab Podcast „Tanz oder gar nicht“ „Let’s Dance“ 2022: Ex-Kandidatin Oana Nechiti rechnet mit Produzenten der Show ab

„Let’s Dance“ 2022: Kandidaten, Start, Sendezeiten – alle Infos im Überblick Tanz-Show auf RTL „Let’s Dance“ 2022: Kandidaten, Start, Sendezeiten – alle Infos im Überblick

Eiszeit zwischen Amira Pocher und Massimo Sinató? Jetzt sprechen beide Klartext „Let's Dance“ 2022 Eiszeit zwischen Amira Pocher und Massimo Sinató? Jetzt sprechen beide Klartext

„Let‘s Dance“ 2022: Amira Pocher hadert mit Tango – und scheidet im Halbfinale aus Wer ist raus? „Let‘s Dance“ 2022: Amira Pocher hadert mit Tango – und scheidet im Halbfinale aus

Oana Nechiti kritisiert Amira Pocher: „Mich nervt es langsam“ „Lets Dance“ 2022 Oana Nechiti kritisiert Amira Pocher: „Mich nervt es langsam“

Taylor Swift wird auf Gelsenkirchener „Walk of Fame“ geehrt The Eras Tour Taylor Swift wird auf Gelsenkirchener „Walk of Fame“ geehrt

Anthony Hopkins: Deutlich sprechen, statt sexy zu flüstern Oscar-Preisträger Anthony Hopkins: Deutlich sprechen, statt sexy zu flüstern

IBES 2024: Starttermin für das Sommer-Dschungelcamp steht fest „Ich freue mich soooo. TV hat wieder einen Sinn“ IBES 2024: Starttermin für das Sommer-Dschungelcamp steht fest

Roberto Blanco und Vicky Leandros bei Bayreuther Festspielen Richard Wagner Roberto Blanco und Vicky Leandros bei Bayreuther Festspielen

Neue Details – Mädchen sollen 75 Mal auf Luise eingestochen haben Täterrinnen von Freudenberg Neue Details – Mädchen sollen 75 Mal auf Luise eingestochen haben

Zwei Verbrechen an Kindern im Südwesten sorgen für Entsetzen Drei tote Kinder Zwei Verbrechen an Kindern im Südwesten sorgen für Entsetzen

Globus nach Tankstellen-Ärger im Ausland zu Rekord-Strafe verdonnert Schlechten Diesel verkauft Globus nach Tankstellen-Ärger im Ausland zu Rekord-Strafe verdonnert

Böhmermann und Schulz kommentieren ESC für ORF Song Contest Böhmermann und Schulz kommentieren ESC für ORF

Totes Mädchen (10) in Kinderhilfe gefunden: Elfjähriger soll an Tod beteiligt gewesen sein Fall in Wunsiedel Totes Mädchen (10) in Kinderhilfe gefunden: Elfjähriger soll an Tod beteiligt gewesen sein

Wut und Aggression – Aufruf zu Selbstjustiz auf Tiktok nach Tod von Luise (12) Bluttat in Freudenberg Wut und Aggression – Aufruf zu Selbstjustiz auf Tiktok nach Tod von Luise (12)

Mädchen (10) stirbt in Kinderhilfe-Einrichtung – Staatsanwalt spricht von Tötung Wunsiedel Mädchen (10) stirbt in Kinderhilfe-Einrichtung – Staatsanwalt spricht von Tötung

Ermittlungen gegen Marc Terenzi wegen sexueller Belästigung einer Minderjährigen (15) Ex-Dschungelkönig Ermittlungen gegen Marc Terenzi wegen sexueller Belästigung einer Minderjährigen (15)

„Auf Händen getragen“ – Wagenknecht über Ehe mit Lafontaine und ihre neue Partei Im Podcast mit Désirée Nick „Auf Händen getragen“ – Wagenknecht über Ehe mit Lafontaine und ihre neue Partei

• Let's Dance

• Cast & crew

Let's Dance

• Episode aired Sep 18, 2012

Lena escapes to Russia. Against CIA orders, Joan gives Annie permission to find Lena. Annie tracks Lena, who then tries to convert Annie as a counter spy. That fails, and Lena tries to shoot... Read all Lena escapes to Russia. Against CIA orders, Joan gives Annie permission to find Lena. Annie tracks Lena, who then tries to convert Annie as a counter spy. That fails, and Lena tries to shoot Annie. Annie kills Lena in self defense. Lena escapes to Russia. Against CIA orders, Joan gives Annie permission to find Lena. Annie tracks Lena, who then tries to convert Annie as a counter spy. That fails, and Lena tries to shoot Annie. Annie kills Lena in self defense.

• Andrew Bernstein
• Matt Corman
• Tamara Becher
• Piper Perabo
• Christopher Gorham
• Kari Matchett

• Annie Walker

• Auggie Anderson

• Joan Campbell

• Arthur Campbell

• Dmitri Larionov

• Zarya Fischer

• Seth Newman

• Sergei Mishkin
• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

Did you know

• Trivia In the opening sequence, as Annie ( Piper Perabo ) is getting dressed, the firearm that she checks is a Rhino revolver, made by Chiappa Firearms of Italy. It is notable in its extremely low bore axis (the position/height of the barrel in relation to the grip), and the fact that it fires from the bottom chamber of the cylinder, as opposed to the top chamber, as with most revolvers. This low bore axis makes the recoil of the firearm significantly more manageable, and would benefit a small-framed shooter, such as Annie. It is, however, a very expensive and rather unusual choice for a government operative.
• Goofs Filmed in Budapest when suppose to be in Moscow. Can see the Basilica as well as the Red Line of the Underground. There are even some Hungarian signs seen through out.

Annie Walker : Former?

Auggie Anderson : Because she's dead, Annie. This is the kind of mission where every question you ask is gonna have a scary answer. Due to the high-risk nature, all contact with Langley has to be cut off. Now, even though I disagree with all of this... I want you to know... I am here for you... no matter what.

Annie Walker : That means so much to me. I hope you know that.

Auggie Anderson : Glad we got that out there. Have a nice trip.

[opens car door, is about to climb out]

Annie Walker : Auggie... could you just ride out to the airport with me?

[he closes the door]

• Soundtracks Can You Save Me Written by Apple Trees & Tangerines Performed by Apple Trees & Tangerines

User reviews

• September 18, 2012 (United States)
• Corman & Ord
• Universal Cable Productions
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

• Runtime 43 minutes

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• IMDb Answers: Help fill gaps in our data
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed.

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump

Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. He indicated he planned to appeal.

• Share full article

Alan Feuer covers the federal cases against former President Donald J. Trump.

Judge dismisses classified documents case against Trump.

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case threw out all of the charges against him on Monday, ruling that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed the indictment, had been given his job in violation of the Constitution.

In a stunning decision delivered on the first day of the Republican National Convention, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, found that Mr. Smith’s appointment as special counsel was improper because it was not based on a specific federal statute and because he had not been named to the post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Mr. Smith had been improperly funded by the Treasury Department.

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was put on the bench by Mr. Trump in his final year in office, flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back to the Watergate era that upheld the legality of the ways in which independent prosecutors have been put into their posts.

It handed Mr. Trump a major legal victory two days after he was wounded in a shooting at a campaign rally and at the very onset of the political pageant where he is set to formally become his party’s presidential nominee.

The classified documents case, which is being heard in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., once appeared to be the most straightforward of the four criminal prosecutions that Mr. Trump has faced. He was charged last year with illegally holding on to classified national security materials after leaving office and then obstructing government efforts to retrieve them along with two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira.

The charges against Mr. Nauta and Mr. DeOliveira were also tossed out. Mr. Smith’s office said he intended to appeal.

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the attorney general is statutorily authorized to appoint a special counsel,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel. “The Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court’s order.”

But even if the appeal succeeds, the case still might never go in front of a jury.

It has long been clear that the documents case would not go to trial before the election in November, largely because of the glacial pace with which Judge Cannon has handled it. Should Mr. Trump be elected president again, he could simply have his Justice Department dismiss the case if it is reinstated on appeal — and even if he does not, longstanding Justice Department policy forbids prosecuting a sitting president.

But Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the indictment in its entirety at such a consequential moment in Mr. Trump’s campaign was nonetheless a remarkable development for the former president’s legal and political future, giving him further ammunition to portray the prosecution as an effort by President Biden and his allies to undercut him in the election.

In a statement on his social media platform, Mr. Trump said the decision dismissed what he described as a “Lawless Indictment.”

He wrote that the decision should be followed “quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts,” referring to the three other criminal indictments filed against him last year, as well as civil cases he has faced.

In her 93-page order — by far the longest she has written in more than a year of handling the documents case — Judge Cannon offered an in-depth look at her legal reasons for tossing out the charges. At the heart of her thinking was an assertion that no specific federal statute authorized the appointment of special counsels like Mr. Smith or gave them the “prosecutorial power” that they have wielded for 25 years.

Special counsels are currently governed by Justice Department regulations traditionally believed to have been based on a series of federal laws laying out the structure of the department and the powers of the attorney general. That has been the practice since 1999 when Congress allowed the Independent Counsel Act, which authorized and governed a different type of independent prosecutor, to lapse in the wake of the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton.

But Judge Cannon took a wrecking ball to all of that, ruling that none of the statutes governing the conduct of attorneys general actually gave them the authority to appoint special prosecutors like Mr. Smith.

Moreover, she declared that allowing special counsels to operate under the control of the attorney general was a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. And she invited Congress to pass a new law if legislators wanted Mr. Smith to keep pursuing the case against Mr. Trump.

“If the political branches wish to grant the attorney general power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney,” she wrote, “there is a valid means by which to do so.”

When the Independent Counsel Act was permitted to expire and was replaced by internal Justice Department regulations, there was a consensus in Washington that special prosecutors needed to be independent enough to handle sensitive political investigations without undue influence from powerful politicians, but not so independent that they would run amok and abuse their power.

In her ruling, Judge Cannon clearly sided with those who feared that special counsels like Mr. Smith were unchecked by sufficient accountability to the attorney general.

“The special counsel regulations impose almost no supervision or direction over the special counsel and give him broad power to render final decisions on behalf of the United States,” she wrote.

In their initial motion concerning Mr. Smith’s appointment, Mr. Trump’s lawyers had asked Judge Cannon to consider the related issue of whether the special counsel’s office had been improperly funded in violation of the Constitution’s appropriations clause.

The judge appeared to agree with that argument as well, writing that Mr. Smith had been “drawing funds from the Treasury without statutory authorization” and that “there is good reason to believe that the Appropriation Clause violation serves as a separate, independent basis to dismiss.”

Her decision to dismiss the case came two weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his own doubts about how Mr. Smith got his job in a brief concurrence to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling granting Mr. Trump broad immunity against criminal prosecution.

The concurrence was unusual given that the question of Mr. Smith’s appointment was not under consideration by the court at the time and in fact was never raised in the case underlying the immunity ruling. That ruling stemmed from Mr. Trump’s other federal indictment — the one in Washington in which he stands accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Justice Thomas never mentioned Judge Cannon or the classified documents case in his concurrence. But he did recommend that “lower courts” look into the “essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment.” Last month, Judge Cannon did precisely that, holding two days of hearings in Fort Pierce on the issue of Mr. Smith’s appointment and funding.

The hearings were unusual, not the least because they covered in great detail what seemed to be settled legal ground.

Reaching back to the early 1970s, federal courts have repeatedly rejected efforts to question the legality of independent prosecutors like Mr. Smith. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard M. Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.

Judges have also tossed out efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

In her ruling, however, Judge Cannon said that it was a “mistaken premise” to view Mr. Smith as “just another in a long line of ‘special attorneys’ of similar ilk.” She asserted that he was different from his predecessors for having come to the job as a private citizen and because he operated with “very little oversight or supervision.”

“In the end, there does appear to be a ‘tradition’ of appointing special-attorney-like figures in moments of political scandal throughout the country’s history,” she wrote. “But very few, if any, of these figures actually resemble the position of Special Counsel Smith."

The decision to kill the classified documents case, and the hearing that preceded it, were hardly the first unorthodox moves Judge Cannon has made since she first took control of the case last June.

Over and over, she has issued rulings and taken procedural steps that have prompted second-guessing and criticism among legal scholars, many of whom have pointed out that she has been on the bench for less than four years and has limited experience in overseeing criminal trials.

She has often shown a willingness to grant a serious audience to some of Mr. Trump’s most far-fetched defense claims. And her penchant for scheduling hearings to consider questions that many federal judges would have dealt with on the merits of written filings alone has played into Mr. Trump’s strategy of seeking to delay the case for as long as possible.

Her decision about Mr. Smith’s appointment was also striking for the way in which it seemed to shut down any efforts by prosecutors to fight it outside of an appeal to a higher court.

Judge Cannon, for instance, appeared to foreclose the idea of Mr. Smith asking to file additional papers or to request that the issue be reheard. She noted that prosecutors had already been afforded a “full and fair opportunity to brief the matter.”

And she ended her ruling in a way that left no doubt about her intentions to end the prosecution.

“The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case,” she wrote. “Any scheduled hearings are CANCELED. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and any pending deadlines are TERMINATED.”

But she will not have the final word. Mr. Smith’s appeal will go initially to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

A three-judge panel from that court handed Judge Cannon a stern rebuke nearly two years ago, reversing a decision she made that favored Mr. Trump shortly after the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida.

What is the appointments clause of the Constitution?

The ruling on Monday dismissing the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump cited a relatively obscure sentence in the Constitution concerning the appointment of officials by the executive branch.

The section, called the appointments clause, says that the president and the leaders of federal government departments can appoint certain officials, called inferior officers, without the consent of the Senate — if Congress has offered the executive branch such appointment powers through a law. Special counsels have been considered to be inferior officers. They have the same powers as a U.S. attorney, which is a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position.

Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida found that no corresponding law existed to authorize the Justice Department’s appointment of the special counsel in the documents case, Jack Smith.

She wrote that the appointment of Mr. Smith by President Biden’s attorney general “effectively usurps” a power vested in Congress.

Judge Cannon, who was elevated to the federal bench by Mr. Trump in 2020, said Mr. Smith’s appointment required either a confirmation by federal lawmakers or the enactment of a broader law giving the Justice Department the power to make such an appointment.

In issuing her ruling, the judge defied a long history of attorneys general appointing independent counsels.

The Supreme Court has consistently acted as though special prosecutors are legally appointed, said Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University . “This is a really idiosyncratic view that Cannon has,” he said.

In a 1974 Supreme Court decision upholding a subpoena from the special prosecutor in the Watergate inquiry, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote that “Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government.”

But Judge Cannon held that the decision did not support the appointment of Mr. Smith, writing that the Supreme Court had “assumed without deciding” that the attorney general had the power to appoint the Watergate case special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski.

In appointing Mr. Smith, the Justice Department had cited sections of the federal legal code that it said authorized the creation of the special counsel. But Judge Cannon found that those sections did not authorize the appointment.

Professor Chafetz said the ruling could be seen as less a constitutional opinion than a statutory one, because it hinged in part on Judge Cannon’s analysis of sections of the statutory code.

“Everybody agrees that there needs to be a statutory authority to appoint Smith,” he said. “The question is just whether there is that statutory authority.”

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the office of the special counsel, said the office planned to appeal the ruling.

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue,” Mr. Carr said in a statement.

Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said he thought the decision would “most likely” be reversed, arguing in an interview that sections of the statutory code “clearly” empower the attorney general to appoint a special counsel.

But he added that the ruling would have sweeping implications “unless it is reversed.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Read the Ruling That Dismisses the Documents Case Against Trump

Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the classified documents case against former president Donald J. Trump should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel violated the Constitution.

Advertisement

Eileen Sullivan

A spokesman for the Office of the Special Counsel, Peter Carr, issued a statement on Judge Cannon’s decision and the special counsel plans to appeal it: “The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel. The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court’s order.”

Alan Feuer and Eileen Sullivan

Alan Feuer and Eileen Sullivan have regularly covered the proceedings in Judge Cannon’s courtroom.

Dismissal brings new scrutiny to judge with a history of unorthodox decisions.

Even before her bombshell decision on Monday to dismiss former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, Judge Aileen M. Cannon had made any number of unorthodox rulings.

In fact, since Judge Cannon took control of the case in June 2023 , many of her decisions have been so outside the norm that they have fueled intense criticism of her legal acumen, stoked questions about favoritism toward Mr. Trump and slowed the documents case sufficiently that it would not come to trial before Election Day.

Still, almost no one, including some defense lawyers working on the case, expected Judge Cannon to throw out the charges against Mr. Trump by ruling that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed the indictment, had been unconstitutionally appointed to his job — especially on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

The ruling upended 25 years of Justice Department procedure for naming and governing special counsels and called into question decisions by previous courts reaching back to the Watergate era.

“The very definition of an activist judge, she has single-handedly upended three decades of established law historically used fairly and in a bipartisan manner,” said Joëlle Anne Moreno, a law professor at Florida International University.

From the moment that Judge Cannon was assigned to the case, there were questions about her ability to handle it. She took control of one of the most significant prosecutions in American history, rife with legal and political complexities, even though she had been a judge for less than four years and had extremely limited experience in overseeing criminal trials.

On top of all that, the main defendant was the president who had nominated her to the federal bench.

Her colleagues in the Southern District of Florida were concerned enough about her stewardship of the case that not just one, but two of them approached her early in her tenure and asked her to consider stepping back and handing off the matter to another federal judge.

One of the jurists — the chief judge of the district — suggested it would be inappropriate for Judge Cannon to continue on the case because of a ruling she had made in Mr. Trump’s favor in a related civil case after the F.B.I. had searched Mar-a-Lago, the former president’s private club and residence in Florida, in August 2022.

In a move that drew national scrutiny and criticism, Judge Cannon intervened in the civil case and barred the Justice Department from using any of the documents that agents seized from Mar-a-Lago in their inquiry until an independent arbiter had sorted through them for any that were privileged.

That decision was quickly reversed in a stinging ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which said she never had legal authority to get involved in the first place.

Over and over, throughout her handling of the documents case in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., Judge Cannon has made similarly unusual decisions, often showing a willingness to grant a serious audience to some of the former president’s most far-fetched defense claims.

She has also repeatedly scheduled hearings in court to debate issues that many federal judges would have dealt with on the merits of written filings alone. And that has made it all but certain that the case will not reach a jury until well after the election in November — one of Mr. Trump’s overarching legal and political objectives.

Many legal experts questioned Judge Cannon’s decision to hold a hearing last month on the issue of Mr. Smith’s appointment, arguing that several courts reaching back to the Watergate era had already upheld the legality of independent prosecutors.

The hearing was even odder, the experts pointed out, because the judge allowed outside parties who had filed friend-of-the-court briefs to address her directly for up to 30 minutes — a practice that rarely takes place at the trial level and is more common in appellate-level courts like the Supreme Court.

Entertaining direct arguments from these outside parties was a signal that she was taking Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss on the appointments question seriously, Joel S. Johnson, an associate professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, said last month before the hearing.

Judge Cannon has her defenders. She approached the question of the constitutionality of the special counsel appointment with the thorough preparation of a circuit judge, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who argued against the legality of the special counsel before her at the hearing last month.

“I’ve rarely seen a district court judge this well prepared,” Mr. Blackman said. “She knew the cases, she knew the statutes and I suspect she had already written most of that opinion already.”

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, said that even though Judge Cannon’s ruling on Monday was unusual and rejected by other judges, it is also defensible in the context of recent Supreme Court decisions.

He cited the court’s decision granting Mr. Trump substantial immunity for actions he took in office and other decisions as “legal doctrine that upsets settled principles on separations of power and presidential accountability.” In a concurring opinion in the immunity decision, Justice Clarence Thomas had called for re-examining the legality of the appointment of special counsels.

But the hearing and decision on Mr. Smith’s appointment were hardly the only unusual moves by Judge Cannon.

In one of the more striking aspects of her handling of the case, Judge Cannon has ignored a common practice in the Southern District of Florida, where she sits, of trial judges passing off routine motions to the magistrate judge attached to a case.

Judge Cannon has not delegated any motions to the magistrate judge in this case, Bruce E. Reinhart. And Judge Reinhart knows the case well: He approved the search warrant used by the F.B.I. two years ago when agents descended on Mar-a-Lago and hauled away a trove of classified material that is central to the case.

This spring, in another unusual move, Judge Cannon ordered the defense and the prosecution to write dueling instructions for the jury that seemed to take for granted one of Mr. Trump’s most far-fetched defense claims: that he could not be tried for holding on to a trove of classified documents because he had designated the materials in question to be his own personal property under a law known as the Presidential Records Act.

By appearing to adopt the former president’s contentious position on the act, Judge Cannon seemed to be nudging any eventual jurors toward acquitting Mr. Trump or even leaving open the possibility that she herself could acquit the former president near the end of the proceeding by declaring that the government had failed to prove its case.

“I have never seen a case where one would contemplate giving the jury alternative instructions: ‘Decide the case on this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question in an alternative understanding of the law,’” said Margaret Kwoka, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

Judge Cannon has rarely issued rulings in the documents case that have been longer than 15 or 20 pages, and has often made decisions without revealing much about her legal reasoning.

But her order on Monday dismissing the case because of Mr. Smith’s appointment was 93 pages and full of a sweeping tour of historical events reaching back through the Watergate affair to the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

“It’s significant that this 90-plus-page decision is more erudite with more traditional citations than some of Judge Cannon’s other opinions,” said Mr. Butler, the former federal prosecutor.

Frustrations with Judge Cannon have been mounting for months among members of Mr. Smith’s team, including one of his top deputies, David Harbach, who has twice lost his temper with the judge during hearings in her courtroom.

It is likely that prosecutors will appeal this ruling in particular to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which issued the rebuke against Judge Cannon two years ago over her decision about a special master.

Alan Morrison, a professor at George Washington Law School, said the order to dismiss the case on Monday may end up having a positive outcome for Mr. Smith.

“He can now take an appeal and when he prevails, he can ask the court to reassign the case to another judge,” Mr. Morrison said.

“Of course, it was clear a long time ago that she would never allow the case to be tried before Election Day — if ever,” Mr. Morrison added. “And so this order does nothing to impact the trial date adversely, in the real world.”

Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, called Judge Cannon’s decision misguided, citing the decades of examples of attorneys general appointing independent counsels. Mr. Raskin was the lead impeachment manager in Trump’s impeachment trial over his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. “Former President Trump’s actions require accountability — not the overthrowing of the special counsel on dubious constitutional grounds,” Mr. Raskin said.

For additional context, Trump filed his motion to dismiss the documents case based on the constitutionality of the appointment of the special counsel on Feb. 22. Judge Cannon did not hold a hearing on the motion until June 21. Trump’s defense team has filed nine other motions to dismiss for other reasons. Before Monday, she had ruled on only four of them. Critics have pointed to the slow pace of decisions as evidence that she was deliberately trying to prevent the case from going to trial before the election.

Michael Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and president of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Judge Cannon “handled this case like an eager member of Donald Trump’s defense team.” He cited her slow pace in making routine pretrial decisions and her patience for hearing “somewhat outlandish legal arguments” without ever resolving some of them. Monday’s decision, however, he said, “goes beyond what she’s done before.”

Michael Levenson

The government repeatedly tried to get former President Donald J. Trump to return classified documents before he was charged with mishandling the material and obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim it. Many legal experts believed the case was the strongest of the four against him. But on Monday, a federal judge dismissed the case. Here’s a timeline of the nearly four-year fight over the sensitive documents.

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, said that even though Judge Cannon’s ruling on Monday was unusual and rejected by other judges, it is also defensible in the context of recent Supreme Court decisions. He cited the court’s decision on presidential immunity, among others.

Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who argued against the legality of the special counsel before Judge Cannon last month, welcomed the outcome, noting that she had been thorough in issuing her decision. “She walked through every single argument raised by the parties, by the special counsel, by the amicus briefs. And she went through all of them,” he said.

Charlie Savage

Reporting from Washington

Judge Cannon’s ruling rejects precedents from courts far above her own.

Judge Aileen M. Cannon cut against decades of decisions by higher courts in declaring on Monday that the appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel was illegitimate , throwing out the indictment against former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case.

A Trump appointee at the U.S. District Court in South Florida, Judge Cannon had previously shocked legal experts by intervening in his favor during the investigation — only to be reversed in two scathing rulings by a conservative appeals court.

The question now is whether the appeals court will rule that she got the law wrong — again erring in Mr. Trump’s favor — and whether Mr. Smith, when he appeals the decision, will also gamble on asking for the case to be reassigned to another judge.

“This is a very aggressive move on her part,” said Akhil R. Amar, a Yale Law School professor, who said he would not be surprised if she is overturned.

“She’s already been smacked down a couple of times,” he added. “On the other hand, depending on who the panel is, they might say — judges aren’t always the most courageous people in the world — ‘Trump’s going to be president and do we want to take him on?’”

Judge Cannon’s decision upended what had appeared to be settled law, not only dismissing the documents case but also starting a legal battle that could threaten the federal election subversion case against Mr. Trump — and undermine the system for semi-independent investigations of politically powerful people.

She also objected to the Justice Department’s mechanism for funding Mr. Smith’s office. But her main complaint centered on whether he was legally appointed to start.

While Mr. Smith is a former Justice Department prosecutor, he was working for an international court in Europe when Attorney General Merrick B. Garland asked him to handle criminal inquiries into Mr. Trump as special counsel — a prosecutor appointed to supervise a particularly sensitive matter and who wields the powers of a U.S. attorney with a degree of autonomy.

Mr. Smith is also overseeing the federal election subversion indictment against Mr. Trump. When the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority this month bestowed some immunity on Mr. Trump in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, questioned the legitimacy of Mr. Smith’s appointment.

No other justice joined his opinion, but the matter is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Still, if Mr. Trump wins in November and the issue is still pending, he could use his powers to withdraw the appeal and shut down the case.

Other special prosecutors have been appointed from outside the government, including Leon Jaworski in the Watergate scandal, Lawrence E. Walsh in the Iran-contra affair and Robert S. Mueller III in the inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Courts nevertheless consistently said their appointments were lawful.

In striking down Mr. Smith’s appointment, Judge Cannon argued that the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Mr. Jaworski’s appointment was unpersuasive and should not be seen as binding. She also rejected appeals court rulings upholding the appointments of Mr. Walsh and Mr. Mueller because they relied upon the Watergate decision without fresh legal analysis.

Under the Constitution, senior officials in the executive branch who exercise significant authority are called “officers.” There are two types. “Principal” officers must be presidentially appointed and confirmed by the Senate. “Inferior” officers, still senior, but more subordinate, generally must be, too, unless Congress passes a law giving a department head the power to appoint them unilaterally.

The Justice Department has taken the position that special counsels are “inferior” officers — a view that Judge Cannon accepted for the purpose of her analysis, although she expressed some doubts, given the sweep of that position’s authority. But she rejected the argument that Congress had given attorneys general the power to appoint them.

The department cited various statutes in which lawmakers have said, among other things, that attorneys general are empowered to appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States ,” and that they may assign any attorney they have specially appointed” under law to “ conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal .”

But Judge Cannon said those laws did not authorize the appointment of a special prosecutor who came from outside the government. Others, she noted, have been sitting U.S. attorneys who were Senate-confirmed presidential appointees when they were selected to oversee particularly sensitive cases.

Her decision contradicted what the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling in 1974 in upholding a subpoena by Mr. Jaworski seeking President Richard M. Nixon’s Oval Office tapes during the Watergate scandal. While a former Justice Department official, Mr. Jaworski was in private practice when the acting attorney general, Robert H. Bork, appointed him to take over the case.

In a unanimous ruling , Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, a Nixon appointee, cited those statutes in broaching Mr. Jaworski’s appointment.

Congress had vested in the attorney general both the “power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government” and “the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties,” the chief justice wrote.

The attorney general, he added, “acting pursuant to those statutes,” had delegated prosecutorial authority to Mr. Jaworski, including the power to contest Nixon’s invocation of executive privilege over the Watergate tapes.

The Justice Department — and appeals courts in other cases — has taken that passage as binding law that settles whether Congress has empowered attorneys general to appoint special prosecutors.

But Judge Cannon insisted that the passage was so-called dicta — stray or passing remarks in a judicial opinion that were tangential to the issues at hand and so do not count as binding law. She noted that Nixon had not contested the validity of Mr. Jaworski’s appointment.

“The issue of the attorney general’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued or disputed before the Nixon court,” she wrote.

Other judges have interpreted the significance of the Supreme Court’s treatment of Mr. Jaworski’s appointment differently.

In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a challenge to the authority of Mr. Walsh , the independent counsel for the Iran-contra investigation. Mr. Walsh, a former federal judge and senior Justice Department official in the Eisenhower administration, had been a lawyer in private practice at the time of his appointment.

(Congress established the position of “independent counsel” in a 1978 law that lapsed in 1999. Since 1999, a Justice Department regulation has enabled the position of “special counsel.” Both the lapsed law and the regulation say the special prosecutor should come from outside the government, although attorneys general have sometimes sidestepped that part.)

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel in the Iran-contra case, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee, said the appeals court had “no difficulty concluding that the attorney general possessed the statutory authority to create the Office of Independent Counsel.”

He cited cases dating back to 1954 that showed that an officer may delegate his or her authority to an inferior officer, and said the statutes in which Congress had granted various powers to attorneys general implicitly authorized them to create an Office of Independent Counsel.

In rejecting Judge Ginsburg’s conclusion, Judge Cannon stressed that the appeals court had looked to the passage in the Nixon tapes case she viewed as not binding, observing that, “No analysis of the statutes was provided.”

She also noted that Judge Ginsburg, in a footnote, had said the Supreme Court “presupposed the validity of a regulation appointing the special prosecutor.”

Similarly in 2019, the D.C. Circuit rejected a challenge to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III , the special counsel investigating ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia at the time of Moscow’s covert operation to help Mr. Trump win. While Mr. Mueller was a former Justice Department official and F.B.I. director, he was retired at the time of his appointment.

The D.C. Circuit panel made clear that it considered the language in the Nixon case as binding precedent, citing the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling as settling the matter. Judge Cannon noted that this meant the panel did not reanalyze the statutes for itself.

Still, in that case, the plaintiff had argued — as Judge Cannon did on Monday — that the Nixon case language was merely a stray remark because the issue had not been directly presented and analyzed.

But in the Mueller case, the appeals court rejected that claim as unpersuasive. The panel wrote that the attorney general’s statutory authority to delegate responsibility to Mr. Jaworski — “was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed.”

It added, “The Supreme Court’s quoted statement regarding the attorney general’s power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum.”

In granting Mr. Trump’s request to dismiss his indictment, Judge Cannon once again went in her own direction.

As Republicans hailed the decision, at least one Democrat called for the judge to be removed from the case.

Donald J. Trump and top Republicans celebrated after a federal judge dismissed the classified documents case against the former president in a shocking ruling on Monday, while at least one leading Democrat called for the judge to be removed from the case.

The decision, which is expected to be appealed, arrived on the first day of the Republican National Convention and as the country still reeled from an assassination attempt against Mr. Trump over the weekend.

Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a conservative jurist who was elevated to the federal bench by Mr. Trump in 2020, ruled that the special counsel prosecuting the documents case, Jack Smith, had been improperly appointed by the Justice Department.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform, Mr. Trump asserted that the decision, which rejected the reasoning of decades of federal court decisions, amounted to the dismissal of a “Lawless Indictment.”

Mr. Trump wrote that the decision should be followed “quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts,” referring to the three other criminal indictments filed against him last year, as well as civil cases he has faced. He cited the need to “move forward in Uniting our Nation” after the assassination attempt.

Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, urged President Biden to order Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to dismiss the federal cases against the former president. Mr. Biden has not publicly weighed in on the dismissal.

Representative Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who is closely aligned with Mr. Trump, lavished praise on the judge who made the unorthodox ruling, saying in a statement that the opinion had displayed “courage and wisdom.”

“Biden’s corrupt Department of Justice tried to shred the Constitution with the appointment of their so called ‘special counsel’ Jack Smith as part of their desperate illegal lawfare campaign against President Trump,” Ms. Stefanik added.

At the same time, Democrats and liberal legal scholars excoriated the ruling.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said in a statement that the decision was “breathtakingly misguided,” declaring that “Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned.”

Judge Cannon, who sits on the bench in the Southern District of Florida, had previously delayed the proceeding. Even before Monday, it was all but certain that the case would not go to trial before the election in November.

Representative Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat who served as lead counsel for his party in the first Trump impeachment trial, said in a statement that the ruling ran roughshod over precedent and “common sense.”

“Judge Cannon is no doubt well aware that the Supreme Court has upheld special counsel appointments time and time again,” Mr. Goldman said in the statement, adding that the decision was the “stuff of a banana republic, not a democracy.”

Trump’s case put the judge, Aileen Cannon, under a spotlight.

When former President Donald J. Trump appointed Aileen M. Cannon to serve as a judge in the Southern District of Florida, very few people knew who she was.

But that changed when she was randomly assigned an unprecedented case involving a former president — the same president who appointed her.

Judge Cannon grew up in Miami with a Cuban mother and American father. She attended Duke University and the University of Michigan Law School, which is when she joined the conservative Federalist Society and went on to clerk for a conservative appeals court judge. She then worked in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida, most often writing appellate motions. She is married with two children.

In 2020, someone from the office of Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, asked her to apply to be a potential federal judge. And in November 2020, she became one of the youngest judges on the bench in the Southern District of Florida. Though some senators raised questions about the depth of her experience, she was confirmed in a 56-21 vote.

Before she was assigned Mr. Trump’s case, she had little experience with criminal trials. Her impartiality came into question with an early decision she made in the case, insisting that an independent mediator should review the thousands of documents the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized in 2022 from Mr. Trump’s private residence and club in Palm Beach, Fla. That review would have placed the case on hold for months. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her decision in a swift rebuke .

Since then, questions have swirled about her qualifications to oversee such a high-profile case. In June 2023, she rejected suggestions from two other more senior judges in the district to step aside.

Judge Cannon told senators that she joined the Federalist Society in law school because she enjoyed the “diversity of legal viewpoints” discussed at the group’s meetings and events.

“I also found interesting the organization’s discussions about the constitutional separation of powers, the rule of law and the limited role of the judiciary to say what the law is — not to make the law,” she said in written answers to senators’ questions during her confirmation process.

She is one of four Republican-appointed district judges in Florida who have accepted trips paid for by the Antonin Scalia School of Law, according to financial disclosures through 2022.

Judge Cannon disclosed she attended two conferences in Pray, Montana, paid for by the school. Judges Rodney Smith, Rodolfo Ruiz and Donald Graham also attended one of those years.

Glenn Thrush

Justice Department officials have no immediate plans to seek Cannon’s removal from the case, according to several people familiar with the situation.

Maggie Haberman

Trump is already sending messages to his campaign email list about the dismissal. There is an effort from anti-Trump critics on social media to suggest the decision is not a major development. It may get overturned on appeal, and the case was already grinding slowly, but it’s a dramatic development that even some in Trump’s orbit were surprised by, and it is objectively a significant moment.

Even as other district judges rejected the Trump team’s argument about the legality of the special counsel's appointment and many constitutional scholars believed it was a long shot, Judge Cannon’s willingness to hold hearings on the argument was a signal that she was seriously considering the constitutional argument.

Cannon based her dismissal of the Florida case on the fact that no statute explicitly authorized the appointment or funding of Jack Smith and his deputies. By contrast, the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden, David Weiss, is also the U.S. attorney for Delaware — a Senate-confirmed post. That could make any challenge to the Weiss appointment more difficult, John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney from Virginia, told me.

Attorney General Merrick Garland — faced with investigations into Trump, President Biden and Hunter Biden — has used the special counsel regulation as much as any of his predecessors to provide political cover and insulate the department. It seems likely, though not guaranteed, he will appeal Cannon’s decision. But as of yet the department has declined to comment.

The sweep of Cannon’s decision was a surprise at the Justice Department. The outcome was not. Jack Smith’s team saw the Trump documents case as essentially stalled out for months because of Cannon’s slow pace and had more or less written off the possibility of a trial this year.

Prosectors and Justice Department officials — who had spent the weekend working on the assassination investigation — scrapped their morning schedules to assess the impact of Cannon’s ruling on a range of cases, including Hunter Biden’s looming trial in tax charges in California. Smith’s spokesman said they were not prepared to comment immediately.

Benjamin Protess

My colleagues have written a lot about Judge Cannon’s slow pace, unusual rulings and apparent sympathy for Trump, who appointed her in his final days in office. Today’s ruling will provide her critics more fodder to question both her independence and her abilities.

It’s worth recalling that the classified documents case — in which Trump stands accused of illegally holding on to a trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive national security secrets — was once considered to be the most straightforward of the four criminal cases he has faced. Judge Cannon has now essentially erased it — unless prosecutors can have the indictment reinstated on appeal.

Speaking of an appeal: Prosecutors in Smith’s office have for months been amassing a dossier of what they believe are bad decisions by Judge Cannon. It’s possible —although not yet clear — that along with asking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reverse her decision dismissing the documents case, they might also ask the appellate judges to consider removing her from it altogether.

Looking back, Judge Cannon signaled her interest in the issue of Smith’s appointment by holding a hearing last month on the question in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla. The hearing was unusual not only because the issue seemed to have been settled by several previous court decisions, but also because Judge Cannon allowed outside parties who filed friend of the court briefs to address her directly for 30 minutes each during the hearing. That kind of thing almost never happens at the trial court level and is far more common in appellate courts like the Supreme Court.

The documents case in Florida appeared to be one of the strongest criminal cases that Trump was facing. It was based in part on testimony from one of Trump’s former lawyers, who recounted how the former president suggested they hide evidence from investigators. “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Trump said, according to his lawyer.

Richard Fausset

The ruling should have “zero effect” on the indictment of Trump in Georgia, said Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University. Kreis noted that questions about the appointments clause of the Constitution have no bearing on the Atlanta-based case, which is being prosecuted by Fani T. Willis, the elected district attorney of Fulton County, Ga. But the importance of the Georgia case is now elevated, Kreis said, given the fact that the two federal criminal cases could now be thrown into disarray.

Trump has been saying he is redrafting Thursday's nomination speech to have a different tone after the attempt on his life this past weekend. But if he doesn’t reference the dismissed case, it is hard to imagine that others in their speeches will not.

Judge Cannon’s ruling has no impact on Trump’s criminal conviction in Manhattan, which was brought by a local district attorney, not a special counsel. However, Trump is seeking to have his Manhattan conviction thrown out for separate reasons related to the recent Supreme Court decision granting him immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president.

Trump had suggested in an interview with the New York Post after the assassination attempt that “we hear” the Justice Department might be preparing to drop the federal indictments against him. That is not what happened here.

For those wondering how Judge Cannon’s decision will affect Trump’s other federal case — the one in which he stands accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election — the short answer is: Let’s wait and see . Trump’s lawyers in the election interference case will no doubt seek to use her ruling to kill that indictment, too. But Smith’s team will surely appeal the ruling, setting up a showdown in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. And the cases may run on separate tracks for a while until the Supreme Court renders its own decision on the issue.

Profitänzer

„Let's Dance“-Profi Valentin 2024 wird sein Jahr - so oder so!

Der „Let’s Dance“-General Ekat ist zum zehnten Mal dabei

Profitänzer Zsolt Sándor Cseke Das „Let's Dance“-Finale ist sein Ding

Ihre 4. Teilnahme Besondere Staffel für Malika Dzumaev

Bei „Let's Dance“ 2024 Tanz-Aus für Massimo Sinató in Show 10

Darauf haben Fans gewartet Marta ist zurück bei „Let’s Dance“

„Let's Dance“-Tänzer Paul Lorenz ist zurück!

Willkommen bei „Let’s Dance“ Anastasia Stan ist als Profi neu dabei

„Let's Dance“-Profi Mikael Er ist heiß auf das RTL-Tanzparkett

„Let's Dance“-Profitänzerin Patricija ist heiß aufs Treppchen

Endlich wieder „Let's Dance“! Vadim Garbuzov ist schon voll on fire

Zum zweiten Mal „Let’s Dance“ Mariia Maksina ist wieder am Start

Er ist unser „Dancing Dentist“ Beendet Alexandru seinen Profi-Fluch?

Zum 10. Mal bei „Let’s Dance“ Kathrin Menzinger feiert Jubiläum

• Moscow concerts Moscow concerts Moscow concerts See all Moscow concerts ( Change location ) Today · Next 7 days · Next 30 days
• Most popular artists worldwide
• Trending artists worldwide

• Tourbox for artists

Search for events or artists

• Sign up Log in

• Get the app
• Moscow concerts
• Change location
• Popular Artists
• Live streams
• Deutsch Português
• Concerts near you
• Popular artists

Concerts in Moscow

Find tickets to all live music, concerts, tour dates and festivals in and around Moscow.

Currently there are 3 upcoming events.

Filter by artist

• Your favorite artists

Filter by date

• This weekend

Filter by genre

• Indie & Alt
• Folk & Blues
• Funk & Soul