In yet another roadblock in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal District Court judge overseeing the case, has allowed the defendant to question the legality of Smith’s appointment. She also has allowed third parties to participate in the hearing on that subject.
The hearing, which is scheduled for later in June, will address the claim from former President Trump’s legal team that the appointment of Smith was not allowed by law. Among those third parties who will be allowed to participate and who will help Trump’s argument are attorneys Josh Blackman, who represents the Landmark Legal Foundation, and Gene Schaerr. Matthew Seligman is a third party who represents a group of former government officials, will argue the other side.
The order allowing the hearing provides, “PAPERLESS ORDER granting Motions for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument as Amici Curiae 590 598 601. The representatives designated it the respective filings (Josh Blackman, Gene C. Schaerr, and Matthew Seligman) will be permitted to appear on behalf of amici curiae and presen oral argument at the June 21, 2024, hearing on Defendant Trump’s Motion Dismiss the Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith 326. Approximately 30 minutes reserved for each. Seating to be reserved for representatives presenting argument. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/4/2024. (jf01) (Entered: 06/04/2024)”
This is the latest in the rulings of Judge Cannon that has stymied Smith’s case. Recently she denied a gag order he requested and roasted him over the coals in the language of the order, saying, “Upon review of the Motion 581 [the gag order motion], Defendant Trump’s procedural opposition 583, and the attached email correspondence between counsel [583-1], the Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma “conferral” to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.”
Continuing, Judge Cannon reminded Smith of his obligations to the other party in the case, writing, “It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise. Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.”
Next, Judge Cannon peremptorily shut down a potential defense Smith could make for his conduct, saying, “This is so even when a party “assume[s]” the opposing party will oppose the proposed motion [583-1], and it applies with additional force when the relief sought – at issue for the first time in this proceeding and raised in a procedurally distinct manner than in cited cases – implicates substantive and/or Constitutional questions.”
She then noted that the gag order motion was denied because it did not even meet the basic requirements and that, in the future, any motion made must comply with the law. “Because the filing of the Special Counsel’s Motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice. Any future, non-emergency motion brought in this case – whether on the topic of release conditions or anything else – shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral,” Judge Cannon wrote. Concluding, she added, “Failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions.”
Watch Fox News discuss Judge Cannon’s denial of the gag order motion here:
Featured image credit: By United States Department of Justice – This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=132849708
"*" indicates required fields