Trump argues Smith was appointed unlawfully in documents, election lawsuits

Washington— Former President Donald Trump has urged two separate federal courts to throw out criminal charges against him by special counsel Jack Smith, arguing in both cases that Smith was unlawfully appointed and lacked the legal support to prosecute the cases.

Trump’s requests It was filed in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., which is overseeing litigation arising from the 2020 election, and in the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta, which is reviewing a lower court’s ruling. dismissed separate lawsuit This incident stemmed from the former president’s alleged mishandling of documents marked confidential.

At the trial in Washington, Trump is seeking to file a motion to dismiss four charges against Smith over the legality of his appointment as a special counsel. A district court judge in South Florida who oversaw the documents case ordered an end to that prosecution in July after finding that Smith had been unconstitutionally appointed and funded.

The special prosecutor appealed that decision earlier this year, arguing that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made the wrong decision. Trump is also expected to oppose a bid by prosecutors to drop charges alleging the former president engaged in an illegal effort to retain power after the 2020 election.

documents case

A federal appeals court will decide whether to revive Smith’s lawsuit against Trump over his handling of sensitive government records and allegations of obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation.

But one filing In that brief filed Friday by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump’s legal team argued that the decision by Cannon, who was appointed by the former president, was sound and should stand.

“Jack Smith’s unlawful crusade against President Trump has no basis and never has,” his lawyers wrote. “For almost two years, Smith has been operating illegally, supported by a largely unexamined blank check drawn on taxpayer dollars.”

Arguing that the appeal contains issues that pose a risk to the presidential institution, the authorities said that the regional court’s decision was correct in terms of text, date, structure and practices.

Prosecutors allege that Trump kept sensitive government documents at his South Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, after leaving the White House in January 2021 and obstructed government efforts to retrieve the records. The special counsel also accused Trump and two of his staff of obstructing the federal investigation. He and two other defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, have pleaded not guilty. Cannon denied the charges against all three defendants.

The FBI seized more than 100 documents bearing classification markings during a court-authorized search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, prosecutors later announced: record boxes They were held in the site’s ballroom, bathrooms, showers and a stage. storage room.

Trump claimed the criminal case against him was politically motivated and denied any wrongdoing. He sought to dismiss the indictment on several grounds, including the claim that Smith did not have the legal authority to bring charges due to the conduct of Attorney General Merrick Garland. I appointed 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 pushed back, arguing in court filings that the appointment of a special counsel was supported by Justice Department precedent that has been upheld by other federal courts in previous cases.

The most recent was the appointment of Robert Mueller in 2017 to oversee an investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Approved Mueller’s appointment In 2019.

Ball held discussions that lasted several days in June to evaluate the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment before deciding to dismiss 40 criminal charges the former president faces.

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

In addition to finding that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, Cannon said the private law firm withdrew money from the Treasury without legal authorization in violation of the Appropriations Clause.

Cannon’s ruling and Trump’s filings were based on the same opinion in which Judge Clarence Thomas sought to dismiss the 2020 election case involving Trump on presidential immunity grounds. Supreme Court former presidents led They are protected from prosecution for official actions taken while in the White House, and Thomas has separately written to question the legality of Smith’s appointment. No other justices agreed with Thomas’ opinion, and it is not binding.

Smith asked the 11th Circuit Cannon was requested to reconsider his decision and revive the case against Trump, arguing that the special counsel was “validly appointed” and properly funded by the attorney general.

“In ruling otherwise, the district court departed from binding Supreme Court precedent, misinterpreted legislation authorizing the appointment of special counsel, and failed to adequately consider the longstanding history of appointments of special counsel to the attorney general,” prosecutors wrote in their opening brief. they said. Supreme Court.

The question of whether Smith was legally appointed may come before the Supreme Court.

2020 election case

Hearings in the election case in Washington had been on hold for months while the Supreme Court decided whether Trump was entitled to immunity from prosecution, but resumed in September. Federal grand jury after Supreme Court decision returned a superseding indictment It charged Trump with four felonies but narrowed the allegations against him to fit the high court’s new framework on presidential immunity.

Trump did not admit guilt. He is expected to file once again to have the case dismissed on immunity grounds, but he also argued in a filing Thursday that the charges should be dismissed because Smith was unlawfully appointed. The former president also wants the judge to bar Private and his office from spending any more public dollars.

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

They said their motion to dismiss the indictment “reveals that this unjust case was dead as soon as it arose and was unconstitutional even before its inception.”

Trump’s team argued that Smith’s appointment was “manifestly unconstitutional” because Smith was not nominated by the president and not confirmed by the Senate.

Regarding the special counsel’s financing, the defense claimed that Smith was working with a “blank check.”

Smith is expected to strengthen his appointment in the coming weeks and is likely to repeat the defense he used in the classified documents case.

Chutkan, a federal judge in Washington, is not required to follow the ruling in Trump’s other case and said he disagreed with Cannon’s conclusion that Smith’s appointment was outside constitutional bounds.

during a September hearingChutkan said he didn’t find that decision “particularly persuasive” and cited the D.C. Circuit’s 2019 decision upholding an earlier special counsel appointment.

Trump is running 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.