The hopes of leftists and other anti-Trumpers maybe quashed next month when the case of the alleged mishandling of classified documents by President Trump is heard in a Florida court for possible dismissal on a key point – Jack Smith’s unconstitutional appointment as a Special Counsel.
Earlier this month Judge Aileen Cannon earned backlash from the anti-Trump media as she indefinitely suspended Smith’s classified documents case against President Trump. Publications like Newsweek expressed the concern that the trial may not happen before November 2024 and Trump may get reelected to kill the case against him. Conservative commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza then opined in a video that Smith himself is on the defense now.
D’Souza also questioned the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment as a Special Counsel. Following up on this thread, The Epoch Times reported on Monday (May 20) that Judge Cannon will hear a motion on June 22 to dismiss the classified documents case against President Trump on the ground of unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Smith.
The said motion, filed in February this year, seeks to dismiss the classified documents case against President Trump because it violated the Appointment Clause. The Epoch Times wrote:
They argued that Mr. Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, and there is no permanent funding allocated to a special counsel office, therefore the indictment should be dismissed.
Citing legal experts, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the story discusses the nature of the Special Counsel’s office and authority with focus on the difference between “inferior” and “superior” officers. An inferior officer can be appointed by a department head but superior officer appointments “have to be established by Congress through law, and have their appointments confirmed by the Senate.” As questioned via a number of amici briefs, including one by former AG Meese, Mr. Smith wields the power of a “superior officer” – also called a “principal officer” – and therefore could not be legitimately appointed unilaterally by the head of the Justice Department.
One amicus brief, filed in March this year by Professor Seth Barrett Tillman, contends that Mr. Smith is really not an officer at DOJ – inferior or superior – but is just a DOJ employee at best. The brief by Tillman reads:
The Special Counsel, who holds a non-continuous position, is not an “Officer of the United States,” but is, at most, an “employee of the United States,” who cannot exercise the “significant authority” of a United States Attorney.
These challenges to Jack Smith’s legitimacy as a Special Counsel with prosecutorial powers come at a time when the Democrat-led lawfare against President Trump is on the back foot in both New York and Georgia. In the so-called hush-money case in NY, prosecution’s star witness Michael Cohen admitted this week to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization. The admission during the cross-examination is widely seen as the last nail in the coffin of Cohen’s credibility as a witness.
In Georgia, the so-called RICO case against President Trump is also in peril as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is now facing an appeal by President Trump to remove her from the RICO case. Earlier this month, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear President Trump’s appeal to disqualify DA Willis in the so-called election interference case. A court date for the hearing has not yet been set.