In a day-long session on Friday, District Judge Aileen Cannon displayed skepticism towards Donald Trump’s arguments that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. Trump believes that Smith, who has brought charges against Trump in Florida and Washington, DC, was unlawfully appointed. Trump’s claim is centered around Attorney General Merrick Garland not having the legal authority to appoint someone as special counsel without Senate confirmation. The Justice Department asserts that the attorney general has the power to appoint “inferior officers,” which includes special counsels.
During the session, Cannon posed numerous questions to both the defense attorney and prosecutors, particularly pressing Trump’s lawyer to explain his claim that Smith’s role resembled a “shadow government.” Trump’s attorney, Emil Bove, reiterated the argument against Smith’s appointment but did not directly address Cannon’s concerns. Bove suggested that an additional hearing be held to explore the relationship between Garland and Smith and whether Smith was truly acting independently. Cannon pointed out that there are regulatory systems in place for Smith to follow, but Bove contended that Smith still lacked proper oversight.
Cannon’s handling of the Trump case has drawn attention for the delays in resolving legal challenges from the former president, potentially pushing any trial past the November election. The judge has been scrutinized for her cautious approach in overseeing the case, with two federal judges in south Florida expressing concerns about her involvement in a prior classified documents case.
The session also delved into whether Garland personally approved Trump’s indictment or other actions by Smith. Prosecutor James Pearce maintained that Garland had the authority to dismiss Smith, but stated that Garland did not review all of Smith’s decisions. Cannon pressed for further details on the oversight of Smith’s actions, hinting that the prosecutors may have reservations about Garland’s involvement in the indictment process.
The ongoing debate over the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment as special counsel diverges from previous challenges by other defendants in federal courts. Cannon has granted extensive time for questioning the authority of the special counsel’s office, amid growing Republican critiques of Justice Department appointments. The hearings are set to continue with discussions on a gag order against Trump and allegations that the special counsel’s funding is unlawful.
In an unusual move, attorneys representing non-profit organizations and former government officials have been permitted to participate in the proceedings, offering their own arguments on the matter. Supporters of Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Citizens United, argued that Smith’s appointment granted him significant power without proper oversight. Conversely, advocates for Smith’s appointment, such as State Democracy Defenders, justified the attorney general’s authority to appoint special counsels and stressed Smith’s independence from the Justice Department.
As the legal battle unfolds, with arguments for and against Smith’s appointment gaining traction, Judge Cannon has yet to reach a verdict on the matter. The case continues to draw significant attention as it evolves with new developments.
