Judge in Trump case to hold hearing on ‘unlawful’ Jack Smith appointment

The federal judge in the Mar-a-Lago documents case who has bedeviled former President Donald J. Trump’s lawfare antagonists could soon deal a severe blow to the prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will preside over a Friday hearing on whether the case should be dismissed because the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith is “unlawful.”

The Southern District of Florida judge had indefinitely postponed the trial into the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified documents to resolve serious legal issues involving the Biden regime’s case and its underhanded prosecutor.

In the non-evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss “based on unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel,” Judge Cannon expanded the hearing to allow arguments from amici as well as the former president’s defense attorneys and prosecutors from the Justice Department,” according to Fox News.

An amicus brief was filed by former Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese who argues that current AG Merrick Garland’s appointment of the former Hague prosecutor as special counsel violated the Constitution’s appointments clause.

Smith, who was a private citizen at the time, was appointed by Garland on Nov. 18, 2022, mere days after Trump announced his 2024 presidential candidacy.

“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the brief says. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.”

According to Meese, the “illegality” of Smith’s appointment is “sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review.”

The brief states that the special counsel was appointed, “to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.”

“What gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to create… you’ve created an office in the U.S. government that does not exist without authorization from Congress,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked Garland during a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month on the legality of Smith’s appointment, referencing Meese’s brief.

The embattled AG responded by defending his move to bypass Congress, saying, “There are regulations under which the attorney general appoints special counsel. They have been in effect for 30 years, maybe longer, under both parties.”

“The matter that you’re talking about, about whether somebody can have an employee of the Justice Department serve as special counsel has been adjudicated,” Garland said, arguing that other attorney generals have made appointments “citing a regulation that points to a statute,” Fox News reported.

“The fact that Judge Cannon granted the amici request for oral argument seems to suggest that she is seriously considering the constitutional argument against the appointment of the special counsel,” Pepperdine Caruso School of Law associate professor Joel S. Johnson is quoted in a Friday New York Times hit piece on Judge Cannon.

If Cannon finds that Smith’s appointment is “unlawful” and dismisses the case, Democrats and their allies will go into a thermonuclear meltdown.

Chris Donaldson

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles