On Friday, attorneys representing former President Donald Trump stated that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel in Trump’s classified documents case grants the U.S. attorney general the power to create a “shadow government.” They argued that Smith’s appointment enables him to serve in government without Senate confirmation.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon raised concerns about the possibility of an ominous risk and questioned whether it is realistic, given the existence of well-defined special counsel regulations. “That sounds very ominous,” she expressed.
Related posts
As a means to have the classified documents case dismissed on the basis of Smith’s appointment being unlawful, Trump’s lawyers presented their argument. This has been an issue that other courts have mostly dismissed.
On Friday, Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove contended that Smith was depending on the grand jury proceedings in Washington, D.C., and deliberately avoiding district judges in Florida. Bove argued that this approach posed a realistic risk.
When asked about the matter, Cannon, who is in charge of the classified documents case against the ex-president, responded by saying that it may not be right to cast doubt.
According to Bove, it’s important to have a clear understanding of the level of involvement between the special counsel’s office and the attorney general to address the motion. Therefore, Bove hinted at the necessity of an evidentiary hearing to bring about clarity and resolution.
While Cannon expressed some skepticism towards Trump’s argument, he also appeared to entertain certain aspects of it.
During the hearing, the focus shifted towards the historical context pertaining to the appointments of special counsel. The discussion delved into the early days of the special counsel appointments during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, as well as the various interpretations of the language used in the special counsel appointments clause.
Conservative legal critics of the special counsel, who has been overseeing the case against Trump since his appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022, have pushed a legal theory that the Trump team’s arguments are based on.
In June of last year, Trump entered a not guilty plea to 37 criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified materials following his departure from the White House. According to Smith, Trump had been repeatedly asked to return hundreds of documents containing classified information, including sensitive data on U.S. nuclear secrets and defense capabilities. However, Trump refused to comply and even took measures to impede the government’s attempts to retrieve the documents.
Trump has vehemently denied all allegations and criticized the investigation as a partisan effort to discredit him.
On Friday, Judge Cannon dedicated the entire day to hearing arguments, marking the start of a sequence of related hearings that will persist into the following week.
Trump’s challenge to the funding of the special counsel’s office will be the subject of arguments before Cannon on Monday. At the same time, Cannon will also consider Smith’s request for a limited gag order, which would restrict Trump’s remarks about law enforcement officials involved in the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022.
Next Tuesday, the judge will review Trump’s plea to dismiss the evidence collected during the search and the testimony of Evan Corcoran, Trump’s former lead attorney whom Smith accused of being misled by Trump as part of his attempts to obstruct the government’s investigation.
Last month, Cannon indefinitely postponed the start date of the trial which was originally set to begin on May 20. This decision was made in order to resolve pretrial litigation, making it highly unlikely for the case to go to trial before Election Day.
