Republicans Claim Jack Smith’s Ability to Sue Trump Is Related to ‘Life Support’

a new argument Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s unlawful retention of office underscores how the Mar-a-Lago case against President Trump is hanging by a thread – even if the 45th president loses the vote.

This case is being referred to the 11th Circuit of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by 20 Republican attorneys general. They want the court to uphold Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling that Attorney General Garland was wrong to appoint Mr. Smith.

Judge Cannon not only ruled that Mr. Garland lacked the legal authority to hire Mr. Smith without Senate approval, but also ruled that his hiring was so flawed that he dismissed the charges against Trump and the two co-defendants. Mr. Smith appealed, noting that special counsels were used to prosecute Confederate president Jefferson Davis as well as some of the gangs who assassinated President Lincoln.

Republican officials allege that Mr. Smith twice impeached “the main political rival of the current ruling regime” even though he faces “zero presidential accountability” because he was not appointed by the president and not confirmed by the Senate. The attorney general accuses Mr. Smith of “prosecuting arguably the most politically sensitive criminal prosecution in American history.”

friend Let us quote the Framers’ proposition: “To supervise and control subordinate executive officers was in itself an exercise of executive power that ultimately belonged to the President.” This is because the Constitution vests all executive power in the president and commands him—exclusively—to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

But the attorneys general write that “the express purpose of the appointment of Special Prosecutor Smith is to absolve the current Administration of responsibility, and thus political accountability, for investigations and prosecutions under its authority.” Mr. Garland appointed Mr. Smith to his post two days after Trump announced his intention to take back the White House.

special advisor, friend “We are now engaged in resolving majorly consequential, politically charged issues such as whether to prosecute a former president and current presidential candidate, and what position the United States will take on whether and to what extent a President should have immunity from criminal prosecution.” It is claimed that he was appointed “unilaterally”. .” at the Supreme Court Trump / United States It ruled that official presidential acts were presumptively inviolable.

Mr. Smith argues that the possibility of special prosecutors existed from the moment the Department of Justice was established in 1870. Its statute mandates: “Any case in the interest of the government in any court of the United States when the Attorney General deems it to be in the interest of the United States.” All functions of the Department of Justice “belong to the Attorney General.”

at the Supreme Court United States / Nixon He appeared to endorse the view that the attorney general can appoint junior prosecutors. This is Mr. Smith’s opinion. However, Judge Cannon reached the surprising conclusion that the portion of the unanimous opinion governing the attorney general’s powers was not binding or judgmental. He found that the matter had not been “updated, informed, discussed or debated” and that the court’s provisional clarifications on this point were not binding.

The attorney general argued that Mr. Smith’s powers meant that he was not simply a fact of Mr. Garland, but rather, as Justice Antonin Scalia put it in another high court, an authoritative, unaccountable focus of prosecutorial authority, arguing that Judge Cannon’s It strengthens the justification of . case, Morrison/Olson“select the man and then search the law books to frame him.”

Mr. Smith, on the other hand, friend If he claims to be a “mini Executive who holds the keys to significant executive power,” his appointment required more than a signature from Mr. Garland. This would require the process outlined in the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate) for officials exercising more than derivative authority.

The problem with attorneys general is that the special counsel regulations mandate that such a prosecutor “may be disciplined or removed from office solely by the personal action of the Attorney General…for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incompetence, conflict of interest.” Other valid reasons, including violation of department policies. In order to be dismissed, a “specific reason” must be provided in writing.

Trump has vowed to remove Mr. Smith “within two seconds” of taking the oath of office if he wins the election. at the Supreme Court morrisonHowever, only Scalia dissented – ruling that justified restrictions on a special counsel were not an affront to the president’s prerogatives. Attorneys General claim: morrison‘s logic was “completely rejected.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh expressed a desire in 2018 to “put the final nail” in the case. this summerhe called it “one of the Court’s greatest mistakes.”

Judge Clarence Thomas said he felt the same way. If the 11th Circuit leaves Judge Cannon and the District of Columbia behind Mr. Smith in the Jan. 6 case, the Nine may have an opportunity to revisit. morrison. Supreme Court, friend The writers must be the ones to “pull the plug” on this precedent and justify Scalia’s dissent.