The hearing into whether special counsel Jack Smith will retain his leadership of the documents case against former President Donald Trump kicked off in Fort Pierce, Florida. The special counsel faces stiff questioning over his appointment to and role in the case, with those watching the case predicting that, over the course of the hearing, the Biden DOJ prosecutor will be roasted over the coals by District Judge Aileen Cannon.
As background, the trial, which began on Friday, June 21, is meant to investigate United States Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith to the case, with Trump arguing that his appointment was not lawful. The Friday hearing was the first of three days that will be devoted to examining the lawfulness of his appointment.
The legal team for former President Trump claims, Fox News reports, they “believe that since Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, he can’t prosecute Trump in this case, therefore it should be thrown out.” Further, Trump attorney Emil Bove argued that, “The text of these statues can’t be used to appoint an official…maybe an employee.”
Further, Trump attorney Emil Bove suggested that AG Garland’s appointment of special counsel Smith risked creating a “shadow government.” Judge Cannon, in response, asked, “That sounds very ominous, shadow government, but what do you really mean?” She asked, “Is that really a realistic risk when you have well-defined regulations?”
That analyst added, “I almost hope Judge Cannon grants Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his case because Jack Smith will absolutely appeal her ruling and he will win on appeal. But even more importantly, it may finally give Jack Smith what he thinks he needs to file a motion to recuse—a motion to remove Judge Aileen Cannon from the Trump case and have appointed a fair, impartial, independent judge to preside over Donald Trump’s federal prosecution down in Florida.”
The DOJ, for its part, argued on the first day of the trial that a ruling in favor of Trump’s argument, one that labeled the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith unlawful, would lead to potentially “pernicious consequences.” They also argued that, regardless of the consequences, the Trump team is wrong and AG Garland does have the authority to appoint special prosecutors like Jack Smith. CBS News added, in report on the case, that Smith’s side argued that an old case gives them authority. That report provided:
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, a case that found that a president’s executive privilege was not absolutely immune from judicial review. It required President Nixon to comply with a subpoena for tapes and documents.
Watch Trump sound off on Jack Smith here:
"*" indicates required fields
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