Jack Smith Asserts Appeals Court Appointment to Investigate Trump Was Legal

Special counsel Jack Smith has appealed to a federal court, urging the reinstatement of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. In his appeal, Smith emphasized that the prosecution team was appointed properly, countering a lower court’s dismissal of the case.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges last month, arguing that Smith held a position so significant that he should have received Senate confirmation or explicit authorization from Congress. Trump faces allegations of illegally taking government documents and hiding them after leaving office.

In his filing to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith pointed to two statutes empowering the attorney general to appoint special counsels. He noted that similar appointments have been upheld by various courts, including the Supreme Court, for many years. Attorney General Merrick Garland previously supported this argument during his testimony before Congress.

Smith articulated that Cannon’s ruling contradicted a longstanding precedent, including decisions by the Supreme Court that affirm the attorney general’s capacity to make such appointments. He claimed that her judgment clashed with established practices both within the Department of Justice and the federal government as a whole.

Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, has made several unusual rulings in the case that tend to favor the former president. Despite concerns about her impartiality, she has remained resolute in her decisions.

The charges against Trump center on his alleged retention of over 100 national defense records at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency and conspiring with two aides to conceal these documents from federal authorities. Trump’s legal team contended the prosecution lacked constitutional validity, citing concerns over Smith’s appointment.

In a recent decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested a possible challenge to Smith’s appointment when he wrote a concurrence regarding presidential immunity. Cannon asserted that Smith’s assignment by Attorney General Garland did not comply with the constitutional requirement that “Officers of the United States” be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, stating that unless Congress permited such an appointment, the standards for appointments were not met.

Although Cannon acknowledged that in a prior case involving former President Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court upheld the attorney general’s authority to appoint subordinate officials, she labeled this precedent as “non-binding and unpersuasive.”

Smith countered this argument by explaining that the earlier ruling was pivotal for resolving a legal dispute in 1974 and therefore establishes precedential authority for lower courts. He emphasized that the historical context shows that attorneys general have consistently appointed special counsels since the Department of Justice was created, referencing major investigations that have occurred throughout U.S. history.

In support of his claim about his lawful appointment, Smith referred to two sections of federal law outlining the attorney general’s power to assign specially appointed attorneys for civil or criminal proceedings and to appoint officials responsible for detecting and prosecuting crimes against the United States.

Smith criticized Cannon’s dismissal of past appointments, describing her assessment as “spotty” and “ad hoc.” He argued that her reasoning was flawed and lacked a solid legal foundation.

The future of the case against Trump now rests in the hands of the appeals court as Smith continues to push for the reinstatement of charges involving classified documents. The decision not only has significant implications for Trump but also raises essential questions about the boundaries of executive authority and the expectations for accountability within the highest offices of government.

As the proceedings move forward, the focus will be on clarifying the role and authority of special counsels while ensuring that the principles of justice and accountability are upheld.

Source: USA Today