On Friday, Former President Donald Trump’s first court appearance for a hearing to assess the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in the classified document investigation against him ended without a final decision.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon heard arguments in the Fort Pierce, FL, courthouse. The hearing concluded at approximately 2:30 PM EST following arguments from both sides of the case, as well as arguments from constitutional lawyers supporting either side.
At the core of the case is the question as to whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland had legal authority to appoint someone like Smith, a private citizen, as special counsel.
At the time of his appointment in November 2022, Smith was not nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, and Trump’s attorneys argue that he does not have legal standing to prosecute the former president as a result.
“The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States,” they argued in a motion filed on February 22. “As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action.”
Both the prosecution and the defense worked to prove the meaning behind the law, and thereby determine the full extent of the authority bestowed on Garland and Smith, Fox News reported.
Cannon first heard arguments from Josh Blackman of the Landmark Legal Foundation, who came out in support of Trump’s team. He argued that Smith had lacked proper authority to exercise the powers granted to him.
She then heard arguments from Matthew Seligman, a constitutional lawyer and scholar, who represented the DOJ. Seligman argued that the word “appoint” in Section 533 of U.S. Code 28 is significant, as ordinary employees are not installed via appointment. Seligman argued that the phrase is instead used in the context of government officials, who are put in place by appointment.
“The Attorney General may appoint officials—(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States,” the section reads.
Seligman argued that statute is clear in granting the attorney general the authority to appoint such officials, or special counsels, to prosecute crimes in the U.S.
However, Trump’s legal team said there were “strong arguments that this does not confer the authority at issue here,” saying that the section “refers to officials, not officers,” calling it a “critical distinction,” per CBS News.
Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that Smith is an officer, and the statute “does not provide for appointment of an officer.” He further argued that Smith is a principal officer, whose appointment requires Senate approval, while the special counsel team and Seligman argued that he is an “inferior officer” who would not require Senate confirmation.
Smith’s team emphasized that “precedent, text, history and consequences” support its argument that Smith was lawfully appointed as special counsel. There is a “nearly 60-year history of use of special prosecutors,” his team argued, noting the precedent of U.S. v. Nixon.
However, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey both came out in support of Trump, arguing that “nearly all” special prosecutors in recent history had been appointed by the president and approved by the Senate as U.S. attorneys prior to their appointment as special counsel, noting that Smith was “neither.”
DOJ prosecutor James Pearce argued that Trump’s legal analysis is “foreclosed by precedent” and could result in “pernicious consequences,” due to the fact that other officers at the Justice Department would no longer have authority to execute critical work.
The team also argued that Garland has legal authority to appoint a special counsel, citing US Code 28 Section 516, which grants the Attorney General the authority to prosecute criminal matters and oversee litigation on behalf of the United States.
While Cannon was engaged throughout the hearing, she seemed most focused on one critical issue regarding Smith’s appointment: whether or not Garland had been directly involved in the investigation.
She asked Pearce if Garland had overseen Smith’s team in any way, as the AG has repeatedly denied being involved in the investigation in any way, telling Congress multiple times that Smiht was acting independently, and claiming there was no coordination with the Biden Administration.
Pearce said that Smith’s team had adhered to all DOJ regulations concerning the special counsel, but acknowledged that DOJ regulations allow the AG to request explanations for any actions taken by the special counsel, per Fox News.
Cannon is expected to release a written order on the topic in the coming days.
The post Florida Judge Hears Arguments That Question The Legality Of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Appointment, Could Remove Him From Classified Documents Case. appeared first on Resist the Mainstream.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: John Symank
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://resistthemainstream.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.