Trump argues Smith was illegally named in election documents and cases

Washington- Former President Donald Trump urged two separate federal courts to dismiss criminal charges brought against him by special prosecutor Jack Smith, arguing in both cases that Smith was illegally appointed and did not have the legal backing to prosecute the cases.

trump requests were submitted to the federal district court in Washington, D.C., which is overseeing the case stemming from the 2020 election, and to the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta, which is reviewing a lower court ruling that dismissed the separate case which arose from the former president’s alleged mishandling of documents marked as classified.

In the case in Washington, Trump is seeking to file a motion to dismiss the four criminal charges brought against him based on the legality of Smith’s special counsel appointment. A district court judge in South Florida, who is overseeing the documents case, ordered an end to that prosecution in July after determining that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and funded.

The special counsel appealed that decision earlier this year, arguing that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled incorrectly. He is also expected to oppose Trump’s attempt to dismiss charges stemming from what prosecutors allege was an illegal effort by the former president to stay in power after the 2020 election.

The case of the documents

The federal appeals court must decide whether to revive Smith’s prosecution of Trump over his handling of sensitive government records and alleged attempts to obstruct the Justice Department investigation.

But in a presentation Before that court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, appearing on Friday, Trump’s legal team argued that the ruling by Cannon, who was appointed by the former president, was sound and should stand.

“There is, and never has been, a basis for Jack Smith’s unlawful crusade against President Trump,” his lawyers wrote. “For nearly two years, Smith has operated illegally, backed by a largely unexamined blank check drawn with taxpayer dollars.”

They argued that the appeal involved issues that present risks to the institution of the presidency and said the district court’s decision was correct based on text, history, structure and practices.

Prosecutors allege that Trump stored sensitive government documents at his South Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, after leaving the White House in January 2021 and hindered government efforts to recover the records. The special counsel also accused Trump and two staffers of impeding the federal investigation. He and his two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty. Cannon dismissed charges against all three defendants.

The FBI recovered more than 100 documents with classification marks during a court-authorized search at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, and prosecutors later revealed that record boxes were kept on a stage in the estate’s ballroom, in a bathroom and shower, and in a storage room.

Trump has claimed that the criminal case against him is politically motivated and has denied any wrongdoing. He sought to dismiss the indictment on numerous grounds, including arguing that Smith did not have the legal authority to bring the charges because of the way Attorney General Merrick Garland named him in 2022.

The former president’s legal team argued that Smith’s independent position within the Justice Department violated the Constitution. But Smith’s team responded, arguing in court papers that the appointment of a special prosecutor was supported by Justice Department precedent that had been validated in previous cases by other federal courts.

The most recent involved the appointment of Robert Mueller in 2017 to oversee an investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., confirmed Mueller’s appointment in 2019.

Canon had several days of discussions in June to consider the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment before issuing its decision dismissing the 40 charges the former president faced.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction arising from the separation of powers, and it gives Congress a considered role in determining the appropriateness of granting appointment powers to lower officials,” he wrote. “The special counsel position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a department head, and in the process threatening the structural freedom inherent in the separation of powers.”

In addition to finding that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, Cannon said the special counsel’s office has been withdrawing funds from the Treasury without legal authorization in violation of the Appropriations Clause.

Cannon’s decision, and Trump’s filings, cited a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the 2020 election case involving Trump, which he sought to dismiss on presidential immunity grounds. The Supreme Court former presidents governed They are protected from prosecution for official acts performed while in the White House, and Thomas wrote separately to question the legality of Smith’s appointment. No other judge joined Thomas’s opinion and it is not binding.

Blacksmith asked the 11th Circuit. review Cannon’s decision and resurrect the case against Trump, arguing that the special counsel was “validly appointed” by the attorney general and received adequate funding.

“By ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misinterpreted the statutes authorizing the special counsel’s appointment, and failed to adequately take into account the attorney general’s long history of special counsel appointments.” , prosecutors said in their opening statement to the hearing. appeals court.

The question of whether Smith was legally appointed could end up before the Supreme Court.

The case of the 2020 elections

Proceedings in the election case in Washington had been suspended for months while the Supreme Court weighed whether Trump was entitled to immunity from prosecution, but resumed in September. Following the high court’s decision, a federal grand jury returned a substitute accusation which accused Trump of four felonies but reduced the allegations against him to comply with the high court’s new framework for presidential immunity.

Trump pleaded not guilty. He is expected to try again to have the case dismissed on immunity grounds, but in a filing Thursday he also argued that the charges should be dismissed because Smith was illegally named. The former president also wants the judge to prohibit the special and his office from spending any more public dollars.

“Everything Smith did since Attorney General Garland’s appointment, as President Trump continued his major campaign against President Biden and then Vice President Harris, was illegal and unconstitutional,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

They said their proposed motion to dismiss the indictment “establishes that this unjust case was dead upon its arrival, unconstitutional even before it began.”

Trump’s team argued that Smith’s appointment is “clearly unconstitutional” because he was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate.

As for the special counsel’s funding, the defense claimed Smith has been operating with a “blank check.”

Smith is expected to have the opportunity to reinforce his appointment in the coming weeks and will likely echo the defenses he deployed in the classified documents case.

Chutkan, as a federal judge in Washington, does not have to follow the ruling in Trump’s other prosecution and has indicated that he disagrees with Cannon’s conclusion that Smith’s appointment was outside constitutional bounds.

during a september hearingChutkan said she did not find that ruling “particularly persuasive” and noted that it is subject to the D.C. Circuit’s 2019 decision upholding a previous special counsel appointment.

Trump is vying for a second term in the White House and has said he would fire Smith “in two seconds” if he defeats Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election.